In his review of Chris Keith’s Jesus’ Literacy: Scribal Culture and the Teacher from Galilee Christopher Skinner made the following remark: “I tell my Greek students that we often find in the textual apparatus, the earliest commentary on the NT text.” Acts 19:2 may be a great example of this. It is a problematic text because it reads (NASB), “He said to them, ‘Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?’ And they said to him, ‘No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” This is v. 2b in Greek:
οἱ δὲ πρὸς αὐτόν· Ἀλλʼ οὐδʼ εἰ πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἔστιν ἠκούσαμεν
Allʼ oudʼ ei pneuma hagion estin ēkousamen
This is part of a conversation between Paul and some “disciples” (of John? of Jesus?) in Ephesus. Paul wants to know more about their understanding of Jesus. In the context of Acts these disciples seem unaware of the events of Pentecost, that John’s prediction regarding a “Coming One” who would baptize with “holy Spirit and fire” has been fulfilled. Paul wants these disciples to know that Jesus is that Coming One, so he questions them, and as the narrative unfolds Paul’s claim is supported when these disciples experience the presence of the holy Spirit coming upon them resulting in glossolalic utterances and prophecy.
The glaring problem with v. 2 is that the disciples seem to be completely ignorant of a holy Spirit. How would these disciples been ignorant of the holy Spirit? Even if their understanding of the Spirit wasn’t the same as post-Pentecostal Christians the basic idea of a holy Spirit is quite common in early Judaism and the Hebrew Scriptures. This perplexed early interpreters as well.
In the NA 28 an alternate reading is noted to appear in Papyrus 38 (3rd century CE), Papyrus 41 (8th century CE), D 05 (5th century CE), the Syrian Harklensis, and the Sahidic tradition. In 05 the alternate reading is αλλ ουδε π̅ν̅α̅ αγιον λαμβανουσιν τινες ηκουσαμεν/all oude pna agion lambanousin tines ēkousamen. It says, “but we have not heard whether anyone received a/the holy Spirit.” The Nomina sacra for Spirit indicates that this is interpreted as the divine Spirit in this text. The third person plural present active indicative λαμβανουσιν questions whether “they received” while the pronoun τινες raises the question where “anyone” has received the Spirit.
The NASB has a footnote which reads, “whether or not the Holy Spirit has been given” as an alternative reading indicating the possibility of a similar interpretive solution. The NET Bible has a fn. which reads, “Apparently these disciples were unaware of the provision of the Spirit that is represented in baptism. The language sounds like they did not know about a Holy Spirit, but this seems to be only linguistic shorthand for not knowing about the Spirit’s presence (Luke 3:15–18).” Even now interpreters are trying to make sense of this statement. If scribes as early as the 3rd century were doing the same it must have been a riddle to some of the earliest readers of the text as well.
the archives near Emmaus 
Modern-day utterances may indeed be glossolalic but by all biblical evidence the first ‘speaking in tongues‘ was absolutely not glossolalic [Acts 2:6-8]. Furthermore, if these utterances were truly ‘prophetic’ (as [Acts 19:6] suggests) they were more than intelligible but inspired. ‘Glossolalic’ is fine for ‘human’ speech, but for divinely inspired speech it’s likely not a great word to use.
With respect to your question “How would these disciples been ignorant of the holy Spirit?“. I’ve previously provided the suggestion that ‘Not all Israelites were Jews, or ascribed to the Judaic (Babylonian?) faith (either Pharisaism or Sadduceeism) since not all Israelites were of the House of Judah.’
In speaking of the House of Israel, [Eze 37:21] says “Behold, I shall take the people of Israel from the nations amongst which they have gone, and will gather them from all around, and bring them to their own land.” This was not speaking of Jews (or Judeans) who were firmly entrenched in Judea and Jerusalem.
Even the high priest Caiaphas who condemned Yehshua understood the Messianic role of reuniting the House of Judah with Israel as the explaination of his correct prophecy [John 11:49-50] reveals: “He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Yehshua would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad (meaning the House of Israel [Mic 2;12][Eze 34:6,12][Zech 13:7][Jer 23:2]) [John 11:51-52].
Once this new thing happened (meaning the new covenant) what does the bible say about the House of Israel scattered abroad as exiles? They would not remember the days of being a covenant people, the days they were Israelites [Isa 43:18][Isa 54:3-4][Eze 16:22]. They would be as heathens sowing the vine-branch of a stranger [Isa 17:10]. What could be clearer then “ … for you will forget the shame of your youth, and the reproach of your widowhood, you will remember no more.“? [Isa 54:4] This was also known to Paul who wrote of it “.. that a partial blindness has befallen Israel, until the ˻multitude of nations˼ is come.” [Rom 11:25]
These disciples were ignorant of the holy Spirit because they were ignorant of Judaism.
As you know, Brian, this particular wording is not the only element in Acts 18 and 19 which creates some real (and important) puzzles for the “traditional” or generally the “apostolic authority” concept of the founding and growth of the Church. Whatever may have happened with the early text and how it’s best interpreted, I think the real significance is this being one of the clearer demonstrations that Luke was, in fact, trying to bolster, and even perhaps develop the very authority/unity view I mentioned. However, there was too much to the contrary, too many “loose ends” that this is one among many examples that he could not entirely skip over or adequately fit them all into a tidy model of his (and others’?) creation. But by connecting the reception of the HS supposedly to apostolic authority, which he’d extended to Paul, along with his strong theme of the coming and work of the HS overall in Acts, he could greatly help along his cause.
I wonder if the original conversation was originally not IF there was a Holy Spirit, but how it PRECISELY interacted with humans? One commentary I read a long time ago gave me the impression of one understanding of the Holy Spirit/Shekinah as a radiant Divine goo or a blanket that came down and covered the recipient. In Jesus’ baptism, the Holy Spirit came down as if a dove, ON Him. Another understanding, and ours (Christian) today, is that the Holy Spirit comes INTO us. Someone in that day’s oral society might have asked, “So which is it, ‘over’, ‘on’, or ‘into’ us???” If Paul, a Tarsian Jew, used different terminology than that which the disciples of John (and they could be Ephesian or Judean Jews… or Jews from anywhere actually) in Ephesus had been taught, he simply might have been challenged on technical aspects of its understanding in Acts 19.2.
@Andrew:
Do you think these disciples are people who’ve heard of John through other channels though never meeting him directly? If this is so then we have an interesting thing to consider: John’s disciples were spreading his baptism even outside Judea and Galilee, as far as Ephesus maybe.
@Howard:
Yes, I think this is one of Luke’s attempt at depicting a unified church on two fronts: (1) Paul, like Peter, can pray for people to receive the Spirit in a way that allows them to have the same confidence as the others that they are members of the New Covenant now and (2) it attempts to draw into the fold those who may have followed John, but who had not yet transitioned to Jesus. For Luke, John’s disciples needed to be baptized unto Jesus in order to signify this transition.
@Rick:
I haven’t heard of a goo or blanket, so I can’t comment on that. Do you remember who made this argument? It may refer to “how” the Spirit comes upon someone, though I don’t see any particular hints in this text that indicate this is their particular conundrum.
I was afraid you’d ask for that reference. It was a long while back and stood out due to the imagery. I’ll try to find it again but it may be a good while, or never 😦 .
@Rick:
No pressure, if you come across it let me know.