Acts, for instance, nowhere accuses Simon of avarice, but does have Simon offer money to Peter and John in exchange for divine powers. This interesting twist in the typical portrayal of magicians and the restrained application of defamatory characteristics contribute to an observation that the story is fundamentally not about Simon. The portrayal of Simon, in other words, stems less from a concern to defame Simon than to advance the legitimacy of the apostles. Second, Heintz focuses his analysis on this one pericope. Finally, Heintz's reconstruction of the historical events, while possible, is by no means certain.
Acts is a complex, multilayered work.
While Heintz has successfully peeled back the rhetorical husk of the accusation of magic, other layers remain that obscure our vision of the historical kernel, assuming such a kernel exists. Other events that Heintz deems authentic, such as the presence of Peter and John in Samaria or Simon's baptism by Philip, may actually be the product of other literary or rhetorical agendas. These criticisms reflect the obstacles in interpreting Luke-Acts and should not prevent us from acknowledging the solid work Heintz has produced.