Why Hebrew in Acts 21:37-40

Question

Why Did Paul use Hebrew in Acts 21:37-40?

Does His use of Hebrew in this passage indicate or prove that Jesus taught in Aramaic or Hebrew and that the gospels only contain the voice of Jesus and not the actual words?

Or does it indicate that Paul had specific reasons for using Hebrew in this context?

There are some scholars (Robert Thomas being one example) who hold that Jesus may actually have spoken in Greek and that we have the actual words of Jesus in the gospels. This is one of the issues that is involved in Source Criticism and the Synoptic problem.

Answer 1

Despite the translations of the ESV and other versions (e.g. KJV), the Greek Ἑβραΐς (Ebrais) in the New Testament can mean either "Aramaic" or "Hebrew". There are not separate words in Greek for the two languages. (By Jesus' time, Aramaic seems to have to supplanted Hebrew to a greater or lesser extent as the spoken language in Palestine.)^*

The obvious reason that Paul spoke Aramaic or Hebrew here was because he was speaking to Jews and not some Roman official (who in the east generally would have spoken Greek).

I do not think, however, that on the basis of this single instance of Paul speaking Aramaic or Hebrew rather than Greek to Jews, we can conclude that Jesus only taught in one (or both) of those languages. An argument for something is valid if and only if it is impossible for the premises of the argument to be true and the conclusion to be false. This is clearly not the case here: Paul could have spoken Aramaic simply in order to emphasize his "Jewishness", for example. We might infer that Jesus generally spoke Aramaic or Hebrew, but we cannot conclusively prove it from just this passage.

---

^{* See, e.g., S. Fassberg, "Languages of the Bible"; in The Oxford Jewish Study Bible, p.2067. Many scholars maintain that some form of Hebrew continued as a spoken language as well at the time, as evidenced by the Bar Kokhba letters - written in Hebrew, as well as Aramaic and Greek. See, e.g., M. Wise, Language and Literacy in Roman Judaea: A Study of the Bar Kokhba Documents}

Answer 2

Here is my own short answer to the question

Why Hebrew in Acts 21:37-40?

That Paul spoke Hebrew when he addressed the crowd is stated in verse 40. The question is, why did Paul speak in Hebrew after first speaking in Greek to the captain of the guard?

First of all this can only be deduced, there are no explicit reasons stated in Luke's account. Given that limitation, here are a few reasons:

• The reason Paul had been beaten (verse 28). Paul was being acussed of rejecting the people of Israel, the law, and of bringing a Greek into the inner court of the temple. Later when addressing the people it would have further enraged the people by addressing them in Greek.

28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.

• The effect of speaking in Hebrew is seen in verse 2 of chapter 22. Later in chapter 22, Paul gives his history as a Pharisee trained under Gamaliel and the fact that he had been a persecutor of the Church. It is reasonable to conclude, based on history that Paul understood he would get a better hearing if He spoke Hebrew.

2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)

In this account there is no doubt that Luke records the Greek translation of what Paul said, because the text states that he spoke in Hebrew. Would some of the same arguments point to Jesus speaking in Hebrew or Aramaic, it is certainly possible but not definite.

Answer 3

The Roman officer's question to Paul, "Do you speak Greek?" calls into question the average Jew's ability to speak Greek.

Note the following answer while not direct supports the idea that Paul spoke Aramaic/Hebrew because it was better understood by the people there.

Here is some New Testament Evidence that Jesus spoke in Aramaic influenced Hebrew:

1) It explains the difference between Luke and Mathew’s wording of the Lord’s Prayer:

In Aramaic, Jesus had available to him the word khoba which means both debts and sins. Greek, like English, expresses these two ideas with separate words. When the Lord’s Prayer was translated into Greek, there was a problem. Matthew chose debts and Luke managed to use both words. Whichever word is chosen for worship in English, the faithful need to remember that they are asking for forgiveness for failing to fulfill what God requires of them (debts) and for their failure to do the right thing when they did act (trespasses). [Bailey, K. E. (2008). Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels (p. 126). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.]

2) It explains the Aramaic play on words the passage about no servant can serve two masters before the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man:

THE PARABLE OF LAZARUS AND THE RICH MAN (Lk 16:19–31) … A few verses before the parable of Lazarus there is a short poem on God and mammon (Lk 16:9–13). …. This text exhibits a play on words in Aramaic, which was the language Jesus spoke at home. He says:

If you have not been amin [faithful]
in the unrighteous mammon [your material possessions]
the amuna [the truth]
who will ja’min ith kun [entrust to you].

The root amn, which appears in the word amen, is used here four times.

[Bailey, K. E. (2008). Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels (pp. 378–380). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.]

Note: I am not trying to debate, but seeking an answer. Here is a passage that tends to support your answer:

Acts 6:1. The related questions to this passage are:

1) How unfamiliar were the Hellenistic Jews to understanding Aramaic/Hebrew?

2) How able were the Hebraic Jews to understand Greek?

I think we would understand that Paul addressed the Hebraic Jews.

Are there archaeological finds, such as ostraca, that would support an answer to these two questions?

Hellenistic Jews and Hebraic Jews in Acts 6:1