I disagree with many of these conclusions (exception 6 & partly 9), as explained here:Findings
The Acts Seminar met twice a year beginning in 2001 and concluded its work at the spring Westar meeting in 2011.
Dennis Smith, the seminar chair, compiled a list of the top ten accomplishment of the Acts Seminar:
1 The use of Acts as a source for history has long needed critical reassessment.
2 Acts was written in the early decades of the second century.
3 The author of Acts used the letters of Paul as sources.
4 Except for the letters of Paul, no other historically reliable source can be identified for Acts.
5 Acts can no longer be considered an independent source for the life and mission of Paul.
6 Contrary to Acts 1-7, Jerusalem was not the birthplace of Christianity.
7 Acts constructs its story on the model of epic and related literature.
8 The author of Acts created names for characters as storytelling devices.
9 Acts constructs its story to fit ideological goals.
10 Acts is a primary historical source for second century Christianity.
http://www.westarinstitute.org/projects ... -apostles/
http://historical-jesus.info/75.html and http://historical-jesus.info/76.html
I have to repeat some afterthought about the same Acts Seminar, something I can agree with, from a Westar Acts Seminar release in 2013:
"This is not to say that Acts is totally unhistorical, but to observe that it is less helpful in the historical reconstruction of Christian beginnings than previously assumed."
Cordially, Bernard