Aramaic and Hebrew are not the same language, nor is Aramaic a Hebrew dialect. Those who say otherwise clearly don't speak these languages. They are closely related languages, but so are Spanish and Portuguese, say, but one who have to be totally ignorant to say that Portuguese was a Spanish dialect. The author of Acts clearly did not speak either language. That's also clear from his use of the LXX even when substantially differing from the Hebrew, especially when quoting Jesus, who did not speak Greek and was addressing a non Greek speaking audience. As to which languages Paul spoke, he spoke Greek and Latin and most likely Aramaic. I doubt if he spoke any Hebrew. Jesus spoke Aramaic as his native vernacular, but he also spoke Hebrew. At his time Hebrew was the vernacular only in Judea, and the Jews of the Galilee spoke Aramaic as a vernacular. Why do different versions say different things? Mostly because they rely on different Greek manuscripts, or different textual criticism thereof. I doubt though if the revelation to Paul, if existed, was in a language Paul did not speak.

26:14 In the Hebrew language. This fact that he here states is remarkable. Bengal says:
The Hebrew tongue, Christ's language when on earth; his language, too, when he spoke from heaven." It was in the Aramaic, a Hebrew dialect, that the Savior taught when on earth, and it is a significant circumstance that Paul heard his voice in the same tongue to which Peter, James and John had listened. Not only is this true, but critics hold that the Hebraisms are so prominent in the Book of Revelation as to indicate that the revelations there recorded were made in Hebrew, and afterward translated by John into Greek. People's New Testament

Lior: 9 months ago via iPhone

Aramaic is not a Hebrew dialect!

Report as You have reported this

• Spam
• Offensive
• Threatening
• Off-topic
• Nonsense
• Spelling/Grammar
• Community Standards
• Offensive Username

Add a comment...

Add a comment...

Submit Comment

So basically sort if two words for the same thing. Saul was a jew as well as a Roman citizen so he would be fluent in Aramaic (Hebrew).
(You may be thing if Arabic which looks similar to Aramaic). I dont know that Saul/Paul would know any Arabic but maybe. As an educated Roman citizen he would mist likely be fluent in both Greek and Latin as well as Aramaic so its pissible he knew other languages.
Christ being Christ could have spoken in gibberish and made himself understood but i expect he chose Saul/Pauls primary language of Aramaic.

Lior: 9 months ago via iPhone

Aramaic and Hebrew are not the same.

Report as You have reported this

• Spam
• Offensive
• Threatening
• Off-topic
• Nonsense
• Spelling/Grammar
• Community Standards
• Offensive Username

Add a comment...

Add a comment...

Submit Comment

The word used literally means "in the language of the Hebrews." This could refer to the language of the ancient Hebrew people, Hebrew, or it could refer to the then-contemporary language of the Hebrew people, Aramaic.