Acts 2:5

Acts 2:5 katoikou/ntej VIoudai/oi( a;ndrej euvlabei/j {B}

Behind the familiar words, “Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven,” lie several interesting and provocative textual problems. Why should Luke think it necessary to mention that Jews were dwelling in Jerusalem? Likewise, why should it be said that they were devout men; would not this be taken for granted from the fact that they were Jews? Most amazing of all is the statement that these Jews were persons from every nation under heaven. Out of all lands under heaven could be understood — but since Jews were already an e;qnoj, to say that these were from another e;qnoj is tantamount to a contradiction of terms.

Now it is certainly significant that the word VIoudai/oi, which creates so many exegetical problems in the verse, is absent from a, and is variously placed in two other uncial manuscripts: C reads a;ndrej VIoudai/oi and E reads VIoudai/oi katoikou/ntej, whereas in the rest of the Greek witnesses VIoudai/oi follows katoikou/ntej and precedes a;ndrej. Does not this mean, as Blass, followed by Ropes, suggested, that the word is an early, perhaps pre-Western, variant that found lodgment at various places in the sentence? ⁶⁷

On the other hand, one must ask what would have motivated several different scribes to insert a word that raises so many questions in the reader’s mind? ⁶⁸ It is easier to understand that, being present in the original text and witnessed by the overwhelming mass of manuscripts, VIoudai/oi was either dropped as seemingly contradictory to avpo. panto.j e;qnouj, or moved to a position considered less objectionable from a stylistic point of view.

⁶⁷ See F. Blass, “Zur Textkritik von Apostelgeschichte 2, 5, ” Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift, III (1892), pp. 826—830, and Ropes, The Text of Acts, pp. 12—13.

⁶⁸ A. C. Clark suggests that “the confusion was caused by a very ancient note VIoudai/oi placed in the margin, to show that the a;ndrej euvlabei/j in v. Acts 2:5 were Jews by religion, though by race or residence they were Parthians, Medes, &c” (The Acts of the Apostles, pp. 338 f.). But this explanation assumes that all three forms of text were direct descendants from the one manuscript that had the marginal note, and that three scribes independently thought it necessary to incorporate the note into the text at different places — which is a rather improbable assumption.