Why Is The Book of Acts In The Bible?

What factors distinguished the canonical book of Acts from all the other Acts in Early Christian Literature? Why did the early Church Fathers choose this particular book of Acts to be included in the Bible; to the exclusion of all the others?

As to what factors may have set the canonical book of Acts apart from all others in the view of those who approved the canon of the New Testament writings, such must surely have related to the interests, or overall agenda of such individuals.  In this regard, the context of the process of canonization is as relevant to the queries at hand as is the context of the times that such material was actually written.

The process of Canonizing the New Testament writings was a work in process throughout the 4th CE.  Orthodoxy was the prevailing form of Christianity by that time, having somewhat prevailed in the 2nd CE struggle with the less organized, mystical movement for supremacy within the Christian faith .  Although Gnostic Christianity was still in practice by the 4th CE, the hey day for "the heretics" (as they were known to the Orthodox Church) had been in the 2nd-3rd CE. Howbeit, even as late as the 4th CE there remained an abundance of "heretical" writings in circulation, so much so that the Orthodox Church began forming a distinctive canon of writings which were deemed as being authentic and true.   Hence; the New Testament as it is generally known came to be.

And so the writings of the New Testament are regarded as canonical primarily because the 4th CE Orthodox Church regarded such as so. The Acts of the Apostles thus "made the cut" over all the other books of Acts which were in circulation at the time because such met the standard of Orthodoxy.  Having met the standard of ecclesiastical Orthodoxy; the book of Acts subsequently gained the approval of those so inclined.

The Acts of the Apostle having then met the approval of the early Orthodox Church, surely its acceptance as the only authentic and authorized account among the many other such items of early Christian literature would seem to indicate that its narrative served the interest of the same in a most distinctive fashion. Evidently, the canonical Acts represented Orthodoxy in a way which uniquely distinguished such from the other Acts of Early Christian Literature.  And so, in spite of the several other books of Acts among early Christian Literature which narrated the doings of such well known figures as Peter, Paul, John, Mary Magdelene, Thomas, Simon Magi, and others; nonetheless, only the Acts of the Apostles was regarded as authentic by the early Orthodox Church.

It should be no surprise then that the biblical book of Acts should favor Orthodoxy, and portray such from a positive perspective, as it most assuredly does.  Such basic doctrines as Apostolic Authority, Monotheism, a flesh and blood Jesus who was born of a virgin and raised from the dead, Baptism for the remission of sins, Martyrdom as a means to eternal salvation, and the persecution of the saints are represented within the pages of  the biblical book of Acts. Yet the docetic Christ, who was a mere image of earthly man, and who left no footprints, or who did not blink his eyes, is not featured within its content, even though such a Christ is spoken of throughout other books of Acts of Early Christian Literature.

The primary factor then which lead to the canonization of the Acts of the Apostles to the exclusion of all other books of Acts among early Christian writings, would seem to be that such promoted Orthodoxy as not only the preferred ideology of Christianity, but even as the exclusive such perspective.

Which leads to the question as to the context of the writing of the content itself.  A question which seems to deserve investigative research on its own grounds.