109 The Narrative Role of Semitic Languages in the Book of Acts 1. Semitic Languages in Acts 21 – 22 As noted above, the failure of the “rigorous line” of philology to per- suade more casual readers of Acts 21 – 22 is owed partially to the belief that Aramaic was the principal vernacular in first-century Jerusalem. I should state at the outset that I accept this belief: there are serious problems with recent efforts to rehabilitate the idea that most Palestin- ian Jews spoke Hebrew.6 Nevertheless, I question the line of inference that invokes this view so readily for understanding Acts 21,40 and 22,2, without first considering narrative elements of the account in Acts. As a result of this failure to come to grips with the role of “the Hebrew dialect” in Paul’s defense before his countrymen, both sides of the debate over τῇ Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ have drawn conclusions they should not have drawn, in both cases missing indications in the text that Paul’s use of the language in question was unexpected. Those who think that τῇ Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ denotes Aramaic are wrong for presuming that Paul would have addressed the crowd in the principal vernacular of Jerusalem, while many of those who think that τῇ Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ denotes Hebrew are wrong for presuming that the episode in Acts 21 – 22 supports the view that Hebrew was the main vernacular of first-century Jerusalem. The account in Acts, with most of the details that I count as relevant, is as follows: 21,33 Then the tribune came, arrested him, and ordered him to be bound with two chains; he inquired who he was and what he had done. 34 Some in the crowd shouted one thing, some another . . . 37 Just as Paul was about to be brought into the barracks, he said to the tribune, “May I say something to you?” The tribune replied, “Do you know Greek? Among those arguing for Hebrew as a vernacular in first-century Jewish Palestine, see 6 M.H. Segal, A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew (Oxford 1927); W. Chomsky, “What was the Jewish Vernacular During the Second Commonwealth?”, JQR 42 (1951-52) 193-212; Birke- land, The Language of Jesus; Grintz, “Hebrew as the Spoken and Written Language in the Last Days of the Second Temple”; Ch. Rabin, “Hebrew and Aramaic in the First Century”, in S. Safrai and M. Stern (eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions, vol. 2 (Assen 1987) 1007-39; A. Tal, “Is There a Raison d’Être for an Aramaic Targum in a Hebrew-Speaking Society?”, REJ 160 (2001) 357-78. S. Schwartz, “Language, Power and Identity in Ancient Palestine”, Past & Present 148 (1995) 3-47, esp. 14-6, correctly detects a zionistic ideology behind many of the arguments for a Hebrew vernacular. Such an ideology clearly represents Chomsky’s motivation: after the first page, he spells “aramaic” in all lower-case letters while capitalizing the first letter in “Hebrew”!