Pervo's work is known in Acts circles, but is rejected as exaggerated in its claims by most who work with Acts.

There is a real problem with the claim of a second century origin that attachs the book to Luke and links him to Paul. It is that IF someone from the second century were to link Acts to Paul and IF they were to appeal to a figure to do enhance its believability, Luke would not be the obvious candidate. To "enhance" the authority of the work, other names would be far more persuasive, such as Barnabas, Timothy, Titus, Apollos, just to name a few. People in the church knew far more about them than they did Luke. Yet the tradition is united in linking this work to Luke as a sometime companion of Paul. How did that happen? It is not likely to be from a second century source.

There is also other evidence that Acts is not the "hellenistic romance" Pervo suggests. For these details, see my Acts commentary.

dlb