Hovis Kristi Hovis McClain RBLA 423 April 19, 2010 Textual Criticism According to UBS Categories: [C]

Acts 2:43 This verse presents a few problems in determining the original reading. First, the accepted text and an alternative reading both have strong Alexandrian support. Second, regarding internal evidence, each of the five readings display possible errors in transcription. Third, the distribution of manuscript evidence coupled with internal discrepancies creates a bizarre pool of evidence and a consequent considerable uncertainty as to originality. External Evidence Three of the readings have weak external evidence, due to either limited circulation or a lack of early and/or reliable witnesses. The two left are near equal in value. The accepted text, which reads dia. tw/n avposto,lwn evgi,neto, has the strong support of Codex Vaticanus as well as a handful of minuscules. Many versions used this reading also. The alternative

reading (dia. tw.n avposto,lwn evgi,neto evn vIerousalh,m fo,boj te h=n me,gaj evpi. pa,ntaj) is credible on the basis of Codeces Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Ephraemi. It was probably used in P. 74, which dates to the seventh century. Though it was often used in Western texts, these manuscripts are by no menas early, and only two minuscules use it. The discrepancy between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus is puzzling. The alternative reading may, in fact, have the upper hand in light of external evidence, given the additional support of A and C. Internal Evidence

Hovis Given the considerations in External Evidence, one only needs to examine the preferred reading and credible alternative reading. The alternative reading adds evn vIerousalh,m, which, if original, would create repetition, for Luke has already mentioned in 2:5 that the apostles were in Jerusalem. Furthermore, the additional clause about fear could have been a

metathesis on behalf of the scribe in that it nearly mimics 5:12 and strongly resembles 5:5. Such repetition is atypical of Luke. A transcriptional error for the preferred reading is virtually impossiblethe only possibility being omission of tw/n ceirw/n that appears in two other readings, which does not hold up against external evidence. The accepted reading fits the immediate context without repetition. Its agreement with Lukes style, vocabulary, and theology is seamless. With this internal support in mind, the final observation that the accepted text is the shorter reading makes it most probably original.

Hovis Works Cited Aland, Kurt, Barbara Aland, et al. The Greek New Testament. 4th rev. ed. New York: United Bible Societies, 2004.