--- title: "Ephesus as temple-warden of Artemis: coins, inscriptions and the miniature-shrine question" canonical: "https://paulineletters.com/explore/evidence/ephesus-artemis-neokoros" published: "2026-10-23" updated: "2026-10-23" license: "https://paulineletters.com/explore/license" source: "Pauline Letters" --- # Ephesus as temple-warden of Artemis: coins, inscriptions and the miniature-shrine question **What does this evidence establish about Acts and Paul’s letters?** Acts 19:35 is the earliest clear text to give Ephesus the temple-warden title for Artemis. Coins of AD 65/6 call the Ephesians neokoroi without naming the temple; inscriptions add "of Artemis" only from about AD 200. Inscriptions of AD 104 and of the Roman period attest temple officers, silversmiths and silver images of Artemis. The sources reviewed here identify no miniature shrine of Artemis in silver, as distinct from statuettes. - **Date:** c. 334 BC to AD 244 (a group of sources): neokoros of Artemis as a personal office c. 334 BC (IPriene 231); Neronian coins AD 65/6; Salutaris foundation AD 104; 'neokoros of Artemis' as a city title in inscriptions from AD 200/210 to 244 - **Where it is now:** Site of Ephesus and the Artemision (Selçuk, Türkiye); IPriene 231 was found at Priene. The Salutaris and neopoioi inscriptions were published from British Museum stones as GIBM 481 and 578; present location not checked against a BM record. RPC records the only known specimen of RPC I 2628 in the British Museum; specimens of 2626-2627 are in several collections. - **Confidence:** Medium-high - **How it is supported:** Debated - **Catalogue references:** RPC I 2626; RPC I 2627; RPC I 2628; IPriene 231 (= IK Priene 150); IEph 27B (= GIBM 481); IEph 27E; IEph 300 (= CIG 2972); IEph 1578A (= GIBM 578; SEG 36, 1028); IEph 2040; IEph 2212; IEph 4336 - **Bears on:** Acts 19:23-41; Acts 19:24; Acts 19:27; Acts 19:35 ## What it establishes Bronze coins struck at Ephesus in AD 65/6 call the Ephesians neokoroi: RPC I 2626-2627, naming the proconsul Aviola and the magistrate Aichmokles, with 2628 assigned to the same issue by type and style. The city used the title about a decade after Paul's stay, before its first securely attested imperial neokorate (the Flavian temple, dated by Friesen to AD 89/90). The legends do not name the temple. Neokoros was a recognized office at the Artemision long before Paul. An inscription found at Priene, c. 334 BC, honours Megabyxos son of Megabyxos (the first name is restored) as neokoros of Artemis in Ephesus (IPriene 231). From about AD 200, Ephesian inscriptions call the city neokoros of Artemis beside its imperial neokorates: IEph 2040 (theatre repair, AD 200/210), IEph 300 (AD 214/217; three times neokoros, twice of the emperors, once of Artemis) and IEph 4336 (AD 244), which also names the clerk of the people and two neopoioi. IEph 2040 may slightly predate the grant under Caracalla that Witetschek treats as official. In AD 104 the Salutaris foundation (IEph 27) dedicated a gold image of Artemis and several silver images (the full total is restored). A council decree had them carried from the Artemision porch to assemblies and games, with neopoioi (temple officers) attending. An undated Roman-period tomb (IEph 2212) belongs to a silversmith who was also a neopoios, cared for by the silversmiths' synedrion. Pausanias, writing in the second century AD, says that all cities worship Artemis of Ephesus and individuals honour her above all gods (4.31.8). This later parallel to the claim about her worldwide worship in Acts 19:27 attests her renown in his day, not in the 50s. ## What it does not establish It does not show that Demetrius, the riot in the theatre, or the town clerk's speech happened as Acts 19:23-41 narrates. It shows that the civic and religious setting is plausible. It does not attest miniature shrines of Artemis in silver. The Salutaris silver objects are statuettes. In 1890 Hicks knew of no metal shrines of Artemis from Ephesus, and the sources reviewed here add none. Precious-metal objects seldom survive, so this silence is weak evidence. It does not prove that 'neokoros of Artemis' was a formal civic title in the 50s. The Neronian coins do not name the temple, and wording that names Artemis appears in inscriptions only from about AD 200. IEph 1578A names a Demetrios in its broken dating formula, his office lost, and Demetrios son of Menophilos as the first neopoios listed; they may or may not be one man. Neither can be identified with the silversmith of Acts 19:24. ## Where interpreters differ Was 'neokoros of Artemis' current in Paul's day? Keil (1919), approved by Friesen, read the Neronian coins as referring to Artemis. Burrell and Kirbihler link them to an imperial temple granted under Nero; Burrell still treats Acts 19:35 as reflecting the 50s, since he holds that the title would not have suited Ephesus between its imperial neokorate and the early third century. Witetschek finds the coins inconclusive on their own, but reads Acts 19:35 as evidence that Ephesians of Luke's late-first-century day could use the title, which in turn makes Keil's reading of the coins more plausible. Pervo suspects a slight anachronism. On Demetrius's shrines, Ramsay proposed small shrines of the goddess in terracotta, marble and silver; Hicks preferred statuettes and identified Demetrius with an officer of the neopoioi; Rogers judges that identification speculative. ## Other readings Informal title already in use (Acts fits the 50s). Ephesus called itself neokoros of Artemis informally before any imperial temple, and the Neronian legend of AD 65/6 refers to Artemis (Keil, approved by Friesen; RPC's note on 2628 also entertains an Artemis temple). On this view the town clerk's words in Acts 19:35 fit Paul's time, although Acts is the earliest clear text to give the city this Artemis title. Neronian coins refer to an imperial temple. The coins of AD 65/6 reflect a provincial imperial temple granted under Nero and interrupted after his death (Burrell, Kirbihler). They would then say nothing about an Artemis title, and Acts 19:35 would stand alone as first-century evidence for it. Witetschek judges this theory to rest more on conjecture and gaps in the sources than on clear evidence. Luke's own time, or anachronism. The phrase reflects how Ephesians understood their city when Acts was written, in the late first century (Witetschek), or it may be a slight anachronism (Pervo). Either way it is evidence for Luke's setting rather than a record of words spoken in the 50s. What were Demetrius's shrines?. They may have been small shrines of the goddess sold for dedication: cheap ones in terracotta, costlier ones in marble or silver (Ramsay). Hicks thought metal statuettes like the Salutaris images more likely, and identified Demetrius with the Demetrios of the dating formula of IEph 1578A, whom he took as foreman of the neopoioi. Rogers regards that identification as speculation. ## Bibliography and sources - Pausanias, Description of Greece (W. H. S. Jones and H. A. Ormerod, 1918) — Paus. 4.31.8 - W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen — ch. XII §5, 'Demetrius the Silversmith' (p. 278 in the 1903 printing) --- Canonical: https://paulineletters.com/explore/evidence/ephesus-artemis-neokoros