In Judaism Hebrew is the most important language. In Christianity Hebrew is not used in any Church as a Liturgical language. What do Jews think of this? Do they think that Christians lost their connection with the Jewish tradition since they don’t use Hebrew as a Liturgical language?
As Christians, maybe because were not Jewish, were Christian?
Since AD 70, Christianity has been separate fom Judaism as a faith body, and has not been composed of converts from Judaism. So there was no reason for those born into or converting to Christianity to learn Hebrew.
Hebrew is the language of the Jewish people and faith, and now the Israeli state. But when Christianity moved away from Rabbincal Judaism, it ceased to use Hebrew as it’s language of worship.
Since the Jews of the 1st century basically kicked the Christians out of the temples pretty early on…I don’t think that the Jews of today think much about the matter of Hebrew and Christianity…
We’re not Jewish…
Oh, but arent we? What is Christianity but Judaism taken to its zenith?
sure if you discount Hallelujah and Amen we don’t use Hebrew in the Church.
But why would Jews think about Christian liturgy, let alone care if Hebrew was the Church’s liturgical language or not? How often do you think about Sikh liturgy?
No. There are many fundamental similarities, but there are also quite a lot of difference.
Are you sure? I found this website with Mass in Hebrew (don’t know what kind of Hebrew) catholic.co.il/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=99%3Alisten-to-the-mass-in-hebrew&catid=29%3Aliturgy-and-bible&Itemid=35&lang=en
Christianity is the fulfillment of the law and of the Jewish religion. This is a fundamental Apostolic teaching. Trying to boil it down to similarities and differences is missing the point: we believe that Christianity is the true successor of the Jewish religion, of the law, of the old covenant, and of the prophets. To admit otherwise is to say that Christianity is false. We are not Jews in the sense that we are bound by the law, but we did not just discard the law and the old covenant either—we instead came to understand their true purpose through what was revealed to us by the incarnation and life of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Nevertheless, it’s inaccurate to suggest that Christianity as we practice it now, is an improved “form” of Judaism. Christianity may inherit the tradition and the promises of the Old Testament, but my point is that Christianity is very much its own religion as well; therefore, Christianity has assumptions, promises, and beliefs that Judaism does not.
As a venacular language i suppose we do use it, in which case it would have the same status as english or any other spoken language. we don’t have it as a liturgical language in the same way as we use latin and greek as the offical liturgical languages(esp. latin) of the church, which is what I think the OP was asking about. The proper language of the liturgy is of course latin.
It is important for pastors to know and study Hebrew and Greek for their sermons and Bible studies because English words do not quite mean the same thing as the original languages.
Why didn’t the Patriarchate of Jerusalem use Hebrew?
Still, unless one is fluent enough to think in the language, one is still using a translation: it is just one that exists in one’s head.
Possibly because Greek had become the lingua Franca of the Church by then. The NT, after all, was written in Greek.
Yes this is true and Catholic priests do just that. There is however a difference between using a language to further understanding and using it as an official or liturgical language.
Studying of language and literature involves studying the custom, mentality and the history of the people speaking the language. Scholars of the Bible need to know the language it was originally written or even Latin where some of the early translation was written and the early language used by the church, to really appreciate the context of the content.
Thus we can understand why Joseph wanted to break the engagement to Mary after finding out she was pregnant not because he wanted to but because it was not acceptable to the society of his day; or why it was such a big deal for the prodigal son to ask for his inheritance while his father was still alive which is perfectly alright in some society today.
The language being used in the liturgy however is for worship which is from the heart of an individual. It is not very useful therefore if we should worship with language that we do not understand. Latin might be used in Rome or Hebrew in Israel but not in Japan or Australia. The Church had rightly decided since the middle sixties that the local language can be used in liturgy.
Well, wasn’t Latin and Coptic local languages when they became Liturgical languages?