The Bible never REMOTELY says that Paul did not know Hebrew OR that he ever went anywhere at anytime to learn it. Now, you wrote a lot - but not one word from the Bible because there's not one word in the Bible that states what you do or remotely implies it.
The NT was written in Greek. There was a claim that it was first written in Hebrew and/or Aramaic but nothing has been presented to prove that; we have no Hebrew or Aramaic manuscripts of the NT dating from before we have Greek ones. The recent "Aramaic Theory" of a tiny few has been repudiated, as well as simply having zero historic evidence; the sole purpose of this wild theory is so they can use some mysterious, invisible unknown as their norm instead of what actually exists.
I don't. I use a translation because I don't know Greek or Hebrew. Do you?
Again, there are THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of translations of the Bible. All done because there were lay readers who could not easily read Hebrew or Greek but wanted to read the text in a translation they could understand. But no publishing house speak officially, definitively and authoritatively for the church catholic as to what is and is not canonical. Publishing houses publish books (hopefully, that will sell). That's it. That's all. Nothing can be made of this.
It is likely some "church fathers" used translations. This likely because some could not read Hebrew. How does that prove that someone thus officially, formally, ecumenically and authoritatively declared what Books are and are not canonical?
.
