346 Stephan Witetschek Thus the reference to the asiarchs seems to be something that Luke deliberately wanted to include in his narrative — not just some historical detail he could not afford to omit (39). If this authorial intervention is acknowledged, then Acts 19,31 can be seen as an actualisation (not exactly an anachronism) and can even provide one more indication for dating Luke-Acts in the 90s or around 100 CE (40). As to the significance of Acts 19,31 as a historical source in the discussion about asiarchs, this seems to be an occasion to set aside the old maxim “Christiana non leguntur”. When Acts 19,31 is used as a piece of evidence in the discussion sketched above and placed alongside the other occurrences of asiarchs, it creates considerable difficulties for the identification of asiarchs and high priests of the provincial imperial cult (41). The obvious problem is that Luke’s phrase tine;" ... tw'n ajsiarcw'n suggests that Luke thinks of a greater number of asiarchs (certainly more than three) at the same time in the same place. In the 1st century CE the province of Asia had two temples of the provincial imperial cult — in Pergamon (since 29 BCE) (42) and in Smyrna (since 23 CE) (43) — and accordingly two high priests of this cult. After the assembly of Greek cities in the province (to; koino;n th'" ΔAsiva") had been granted a third temple to be built in Ephesos (see below), there was a third high priest in the province, but even this does not add up to the number suggested by Acts 19,31. Historians who identify the asiarchs as high priests of the provincial imperial cult have certainly been aware of the problem. It has been suggested that former asiarchs/high priests kept the title after their term of office, so that there could have been a larger number of people called “asiarchs” in Ephesos(44). However, this does 15,26–28,31 (Neukirchen-Vluyn 2000) 425: “Zwischenspiel: Was geschieht mit Paulus?”. (39) A good example of the latter would be his slightly nebulous version of the conflict between Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15,36-41) or the somewhat vexed account of Apollos (Acts 18,24-28). (40) The terminus ad quem for Luke-Acts is notoriously difficult to determine; cf. A. GREGORY, The Reception of Luke and Acts in the Period before Irenaeus (WUNT II 169; Tübingen 2003). If one is ready — despite all precautions — to follow the increasingly popular and indeed quite arguable view that the Gospel of John presupposes Luke (also known as an element of the “Louvain hypothesis”), then it is advisable not to push the terminus ad quem too far into the 2nd century. (41) Cf. WITETSCHEK, “Paulus und die Asiarchen”, 66. (42) Cf. BURRELL, Neokoroi, 17-37. (43) Cf. BURRELL, Neokoroi, 38-54. (44) Cf. DEININGER, Provinziallandtage, 46; CARTER, “Archiereis”, 66, n. 49; similarly already ROSS TAYLOR, “Asiarchs”, 256.