Ladies and Gentlemen,
I'll try to get the ball rolling with a few observations. Rather than hide
inconsistencies, the lectionary framers laudably put side by side the two
apparently different accounts of how the Spirit entered the Apostles. Jesus'
"blowing (enephusEsen)" of the Spirit could be approached by the historian in
two ways. 1) It reflects the advanced Christology of John and is likely a late
creation. 2) It accords with the mud and spittle healing, such a quasi-magical
feel that it must be preserving something original.
Much has been made of the term "dialectos" in Acts 2:6, that it attests to the
Pentecost Miracle as being an overcoming of minor dialetical differences, rather
than hearing different languages. I'll argue against that.
1) The interchanges between glwssa (vv. 4, 11) and dialektos (vv. 6, 8) is
stylistic interchange. The same type of alteration is seen in verses 7 and 12,
where the people are first off "amazed (existanto) and astounded (ethamazov)"
and later they are "amazed (existanto) and bewildered (diEporoun).
2) Some of the people in the list of visitors could not be expected to have a
dialect of Aramaic at their disposal, especially the proselytes.