Adams, Sean A. “Paul The Roman Citizen: Roman Citizenship In The Ancient World And Its Importance For Understanding Acts 22:22–29.” In Paul: Jew, Greek, and Roman, 315. Accessed May 8, 2018. https://www.academia.edu/3793625/Paul_t ... s_22_22-29.To discount Paul’s citizenship would totally discount the entire narrative . . . . .
Earlier, Jerome Murphy-O'Connor pointed out that the author of Acts did not invent Paul's Roman citizenship because, (1) to state it as a fact, the author read it in the "we passages" document; and (2) he could not have invented the citizenship of Paul so that the plot would take him to Rome because, after all, "nothing happened in Rome" when he got there:
Murphy-O’Connor, J. (Jerome). Paul : A Critical Life. Oxford : Clarendon Press ; New York : Oxford University Press, 1996. http://archive.org/details/paulcriticallife0000murp. p. 39Luke's assertion that Paul was a Roman citizen cannot be ascribed to his propagandizing intention because he found it in one of his sources, namely, the Travel Document.31 Moreover, Paul's voyage to Rome, which is presented as a privilege of his citizenship (Acts 25:11-12; 26: 32; 28:19),32 cannot be ascribed to Lucan invention because it is not exploited. Nothing happens in Rome.
Those are three scholarly arguments for the historicity of Paul's Roman citizenship. There may be stronger ones out there.
As for sources, we can see the evidence of use of Jewish scriptures, of the gospel of Luke and Mark in Acts, a Maccabean and Josephus and Euripides, nor to forget at least a little bit of Homer, maybe the myth of Rome's founding (Bonz), and even of the career of Peter as a source for the mirror career of Paul.
But let's imagine other sources for which we have no such clear evidence and accept that there were oral reports and other written accounts that the author of Acts used. -----
How would appealing to such hypothetical sources move us any closer to accepting the historicity of Acts? How could we apply the usual tests historians in other fields apply to sources: are they genuine? who wrote them and when and why? are they Papias-like fiction? are they true history? are they midrash/haggadah narratives to present theological lessons? are they early attempts to manufacture or document a new historical identity for the group? How can we know?
As long as the author of Acts remains anonymous and its time and place of origin up for debate, and as long as we can best assess his reasons for writing by comparing it with, first of all, what we know of the times in which we first find it independently acknowledged, and as long as we acknowledge its use of literary sources for which we do have evidence, I think it is going to be hard to find a secure argument (one based on independent confirmation of some sort) that can establish it as even partly a "genuine historical" document.