Artemis and Asiarchs 335 an indication of reliable sources that Luke could use — and thus of the historical reliability of his account (3) This approach no doubt yields many fascinating findings, and, in fact, many elements of Acts 19 can be correlated to information provided by the impressive corpus of inscriptions, which allows us to appreciate Luke as a very well informed author. But is it really possible to go one step further and declare these details to be authentic information from Paul’s time? Back in the 1970s, Hans Conzelmann has denounced this as a short circuit and set up what became known as his “Karl May rule”: Local detail or direct speech does not prove anything with regard to the historicity of the narrated event (4). With minor stylistic variations, this rule has been a constant element of the Arbeitsbuch zum Neuen Testament, from the 1st edition in 1975 to the 14th edition in 2004 (5). It even found benevolent reception outside the academic discipline of New Testament Exegesis (6). The reasoning behind this rule is spelt out in greater detail in a fairly harsh book review from 1976, where Conzelmann moved from criticising a certain book to more general considerations: “Ein Problem der Methode: Angelsächsische Forscher haben hervorragende Arbeit in der Erforschung der Schauplätze geleistet, auf denen die Handlung der AG spielt. Nun wird gern der Schluß gezogen: Ist das Milieu (z.B. das damalige Athen) getreu geschildert, dann ist auch der Bericht über die Ereignisse zuverlässig. Nun, gerade das ist die Frage: Mit jenem Schluß läßt sich schließlich auch die Geschicht- lichkeit der Erzählungen von Karl May beweisen” (7). suggests that the tumult reported in Acts 19,23-40 is due to an over-sensitivity towards any slander of Artemis, which in turn is due to the measures taken by the proconsul Paullus Fabius Persicus about a decade earlier to restore good order in the finances of the Artemision and the appointment of priests (see IvE 17-19). (3) Cf. e.g. TREBILCO, Early Christians, 105-106. He points to a variation in designations for Artemis: In Acts 19,27 she is hJ megavlh qea; “Artemi", whereas in 19,37 she is referred to as hJ qeov". The same distinction (feminine form in conjunction with the proper name, masculine form without the proper name) is also found in the “Salutaris inscription” IvE 27 and thus, according to Trebilco, is “authentic Ephesian speech” (106). (4) Cf. H. CONZELMANN – A. LINDEMANN, Arbeitsbuch zum Neuen Testament (UTB 52; Tübingen 11975) 41: “Eine genaue Milieuschilderung oder auch die breite Wiedergabe wörtlicher Rede beweist für die Geschichtlichkeit oder ‘Richtigkeit’ des erzählten Ereignisses überhaupt nichts”. (5) Cf. CONZELMANN – LINDEMANN, Arbeitsbuch1, 41; Arbeitsbuch14, 52. (6) Cf. e.g. J. WEHNERT, “Die ‘Karl-May-Regel’ in der neutestamentlichen Wissenschaft”, Mitteilungen der Karl-May-Gesellschaft 16 (1984) 42. (7) Review of W. GASQUE, A History of the Criticism of the Acts of the