344 Stephan Witetschek gymnasiarch, prytanis and temple-warden, but not his service as secretary. This example of one of the most prominent Ephesians (certainly in the period of interest for this contribution) shows that both theories — the identification of high priests and asiarchs and the distinction between the two offices — are not without problems. c) The significance of Acts 19,31 The reference to asiarchs in Acts 19,31 is interesting with regard to both aspects outlined above. Firstly, the attestation of the title could provide one possible indication for the date of Luke-Acts. Moreover, a study of Acts 19,31 can contribute to the discussion among historians as to whether or not “asiarch” is another designation for the high priest of the provincial imperial cult. As to the date of Acts, it has become the majority view that Acts, together with the Gospel of Luke (32), was composed towards the end of the 1st century CE (33). Even though the death of Paul is not explicitly narrated, it is presupposed (cf. esp. Acts 20,17-38), and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE does not seem to be a recent event (cf. Luke 21,24: the kairoi; ejqnw'n are understood as a longer period) (34). This brings Luke-Acts fairly close to the marked increase in the epigraphic attestation of asiarchs by 89/90 CE — and this chronological affinity (32) The compositional unity of the two-volume work called Luke-Acts has recently been questioned; for a brief survey cf. R.I. PERVO, Acts (ed. H.W. ATTRIDGE) (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN 2009) 18-20. The differences between Luke and Acts are indeed to be acknowledged, and time is to be allowed for the author’s research. But the brief, passing prologue of Acts 1,1 does not give any indication of a greater interval between the composition of the Gospel of Luke and Acts. (33) For a discussion of the date cf. WITETSCHEK, Ephesische Enthüllungen 1, 245-255. For a decidedly early date (early 60s) cf. A. HARNACK, Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament III. Die Apostelgeschichte (Leipzig 1908); ID., Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament IV. Neue Untersuchungen zur Apostelgeschichte und zur Abfassungszeit der synoptischen Evangelien (Leipzig 1908); J.A.T. ROBINSON, Redating the New Testament (London 1976) 86-92; C.J. HEMER, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (ed. C.H. GEMPF) (WUNT 49; Tübingen 1989) 365-410; A. MITTELSTAEDT, Lukas als Historiker. Zur Datierung des lukanischen Doppelwerkes (TANZ 43; Tübingen 2006). A late date (110-120) has recently been suggested by R.I. PERVO, Dating Acts. Between the Evangelists and the Apologists (Santa Rosa, CA 2006). (34) Both arguments are questioned by MITTELSTAEDT, Lukas als Historiker, 131-163, 165-198. For a detailed discussion see WITETSCHEK, “Paulus und die Asiarchen”, 62-63, n. 13; ID., Ephesische Enthüllungen 1, 250-254.