Artemis and Asiarchs 337 Erinnerung in der ‘objektiven’ Tiefe einer Erstepoche, um seiner Gemeinschaft auf einem lebhaften Forum konkurrierender religiöser Selbstdefinitionen die altbiblische Herkunft sichtbar zu machen, die Stiftungsmemoria zu vergegenwärtigen und so ihrer Gegenwart verbindliche Identität zu geben. Anders gesagt: Er entwirft die intentionale Geschichte der werdenden Kirche. Es ist diese Intentionalität, die seine Geschichtsschreibung als konstruktives Ordnungshandeln verstehen lässt” (10). If this is a valid approach to Acts, then it becomes problematic to maintain a prejudice in favour of Acts as an a priori reliable historical source for the narrated events. On the other hand, to acknowledge that Luke had an agenda does not in itself justify a general verdict about Acts as historically worthless. Rather, as is often pointed out (11), the merits of historical details in Acts have to be judged individually — with the “Karl May rule” in mind. Moreover, when Acts is used as a historical source, some further clarification is required: Is the book used as a source for the events narrated, or is it used as a source for its author ’s convictions and concerns and for the challenges Luke and his readers/hearers probably faced? Are we interested in what happened in the first three decades of Christianity, or are we interested in how Luke told this story of the beginnings to an audience in his own time? Both approaches are worthwhile, but they should not be confused. In the present contribution, these considerations will be further fleshed out with regard to two details in Acts 19. 2. The Asiarchs In Acts 19,30-31 Luke interrupts his story of the silversmiths’ revolt as the riotous crowd gathers in the theatre. Now the narrative focuses on Paul and his non-involvement in this riot. Apart from (10) K. BACKHAUS, “Lukas der Maler: Die Apostelgeschichte als intentionale Geschichte der christlichen Erstepoche”, K. BACKHAUS – G. HÄFNER, Historio- graphie und fiktionales Erzählen. Zur Konstruktivität in Geschichtstheorie und Exegese (BThSt 86; Neukirchen-Vluyn 2007) 30-66, 31 (the chapter’s thesis); for materially similar (if differently nuanced) assessments cf. e.g. C.K. BARRETT, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Acts of the Apostles (ICC; London – New York 1998) II, cxi-cxii.cxvi-cxviii; S. SHAUF, Theology as History, History as Theology. Paul in Ephesus in Acts 19 (BZNW 133; Berlin – New York 2005) 299-317; D. MARGUERAT, Les Actes des Apôtres (1–12) (CNT 5a; Genève 2007) 26-27. (11) Cf. e.g. J.A. FITZMYER, The Acts of the Apostles. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 31; New York 1998) 127; CONZELMANN – LINDEMANN, Arbeitsbuch14, 359.