I would like to point out Luke at this time. The man was a traveling friend of Pauls and a physician. He states in the opening chapter of his Gospel, that his account of the life of Christ, was based on eyewitness testimonies, which were carefully researched. Lukes accuracy as a historian is unmatched.
"One of the greatest archaeologists is the late Sir William Ramsay. He studied under the famous liberal German historical schools in the mid-nineteenth century. Known for its scholarship, this school taught that the New Testament was not a historical document. With this premise, Ramsay investigated biblical claims as he searched through Asia Minor. What he discovered caused him to reverse his initial view. He wrote:
I began with a mind unfavorable to it [Acts], for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tubingen theory had at one time quite convinced me. It did not then in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I found myself often brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth.{6}
Luke's accuracy is demonstrated by the fact that he names key historical figures in the correct time sequence as well as correct titles to government officials in various areas: Thessalonica, politarchs; Ephesus, temple wardens; Cyprus, procouncil; and Malta, the first man of the island.
In Luke's announcement of Jesus' public ministry (Luke 3:1), he mentions, "Lysanius tetrarch of Abilene." Scholars questioned Luke's credibility since the only Lysanius known for centuries was a ruler of Chalcis who ruled from 40–36 B.C. However an inscription dating to be in the time of Tiberius, who ruled from 14–37 A.D., was found recording a temple dedication which names Lysanius as the "tetrarch of Abila" near Damascus. This matches well with Luke's account.
In Acts 18:12-17, Paul was brought before Gallio, the proconsul of Achaea. Once again archaeology confirms this account. At Delphi an inscription of a letter from Emperor Claudius was discovered. In it he states, "Lucius Junios Gallio, my friend, and the proconsul of Achaia . . ."{7} Historians date the inscription to 52 A.D. which corresponds to the time of the apostle's stay in 51.
In Acts 19:22 and Romans 16:23, Erastus, a coworker of Paul, is named the Corinthian city treasurer. Archaeologists excavating a Corinthian theatre in 1928 discovered an inscription. It reads, "Erastus in return for his aedilship laid the pavement at his own expense." The pavement was laid in 50 A.D. The designation of treasurer describes the work of a Corinthian aedile.
In Acts 28:7, Luke gives Plubius, the chief man on the island of Malta, the title, "first man of the island." Scholars questioned this strange title and deemed it unhistorical. Inscriptions have recently been discovered on the island that indeed gives Plubius the title of "first man."
"In all, Luke names thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine islands without error."{8} A. N. Sherwin-White states, "For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. . . . Any attempt to reject its basic historicity must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted."{9} "
http://www.probe.org/docs/arch-nt.html
Far more recently, using Lukes account of a shipwreck Paul endured, researchers have found the last remains of a first century Roman ship off Malta. A book has been about this discovery but this article provides much of the story -
http://www.khouse.org/articles/2002/413/
If Luke can get minor little details of Pauls travels perfectly without error, how much more should we trust his account of the life of Jesus, which is the MAJOR focus of his writing?