111 The Narrative Role of Semitic Languages in the Book of Acts lead one to that view–after all, Paul clearly emphasizes his fidelity to Jewish practice, and speaking Hebrew would have helped to that end. I am not disputing that the ability to speak Hebrew would have held positive valence in a dispute over one’s Jewishness,8 but there are clear indicators within the narrative that Paul’s use of Hebrew had another purpose: he spoke Hebrew not so much to be understood by the crowd, or to demonstrate his Jewishness, but so as not to be understood by the Roman tribune (which of course is why the latter threatens to scourge Paul unless he reveals what he said in his address). That this is so is suggested not only by the tactical element in Paul’s behavior, but also by a number of more direct indicators: depending on whether one translates Ἑλληνιστὶ γινώσκεις (21,37) as a question or an observation, the tribune either asks Paul if he can speak Greek or expresses his surprise at hearing Paul speak Greek, either of which would imply that he had been speaking something other than Greek. This might suggest that Paul had wrangled with his captors in a non-Greek language, a point supported by normal expectations: whenever possible, one usually addresses a lynch mob in a language that it would understand.9 Yet when he addresses the crowd in “the Hebrew dialect”, they are “even more quiet” (22,2) because of the language he was using, as if they were surprised at his choice of language. Why should they be surprised at the language he used if he addressed them in the same language he had just been using? Presumably, “the Hebrew dialect” denotes something different from the language Paul had earlier been using to address his assailants, and it is fairly certain that the latter language was not Greek. vernacular of the rebels holed up in Jerusalem. There is really little indication that Hebrew is used in this instance out of pure linguistic necessity, and, barring the (problematic) supposition that Aramaic was not a Jerusalemite language in the first century, the fact that Josephus bothers to mention which language he used suggests that something else is at play. It is more likely, in my view, that the Romans instructed Josephus to address John in Hebrew because of the nationalist pretensions of those who used that language and of the special attention Jerusalemites gave to that language. The Romans perhaps understood the psychological effect that an address in Hebrew would have had on the multitude. There is little room to doubt that any of a number of the Romans themselves could have addressed the Jewish rebels in Aramaic, but there was a distinct advantage in having a fellow Jew do it, and if there was an advantage to having Josephus do it rather than a Roman, there would also have been an advantage in having him do it in Hebrew rather than Aramaic. See T. Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society (London 1983) 230-2. Rapske, The Book of Acts and Paul in Roman Custody, 91 n. 119, plausibly suggests 8 that Paul’s claim to be a “Hebrew of Hebrews” (Phil 3,5) refers to his ability to speak “Hebrew/Aramaic”. See F.F. Bruce, “Is the Paul of Acts the Real Paul?”, BJRL 58 (1975-76) 282-305, esp. 285. I therefore question J. Munck’s contention, The Acts of the Apostles: Introduction, 9 Translation and Notes (Garden City, NY 1967) 217 that Paul “had been expected” to address the crowd in Greek.