TO WHAT EXTENT are the conclusions drawn here specific to the particular version of the liturgy studied in this book? Differences have been mentioned between this and other rites, and attention drawn to variations of meaning resulting from even minor divergences. But do those versions present such different messages that the conclusions reached in this book are called into question? This chapter will examine the introductory sequences of four versions current in the English-speaking world, and will conclude that there is in fact a remarkable degree of consistency of themes across rites. This supports the validity of the interpretation offered here, and also the argument that critical reticence about the liturgy reflects an unspoken awareness of its theological challenges. One of the parallel rites examined here—the Sephardi one—even shows a remarkable enrichment of the arguments identified in the version analysed here. This seems not to have been noted before and underlines the intelligence and insight of the liturgical editors.

The first version to be examined here, the Sephardi prayer-book, was a source of variants appearing in branches of the Ashkenazi rite influenced by the hasidic movement. I have chosen it in preference to the far more widely used hasidic rite since it presents more radical differences, highlighting liturgical divergence and, as has been said, displaying real originality of approach. The second is an east European variant of the west European Ashkenazi rite examined in the body of the book, showing how variations survive within similar traditions. The last examples are British progressive revisions, selected to illustrate trends within a complex and developing field. Similar results would emerge if a range of American versions were to be examined.

Only the more obvious departures from the version examined in this book can be discussed here, even though this is an imperfect approach. Messages are generated by the interaction of all elements and not just a selection, so a full picture cannot emerge from a survey which fails to take each element into account. However, even a short review will show whether there is a broad consistency of argument across these representative rites. Nor will this survey discuss the history of each version, mainly because no traditional liturgy can claim greater ‘authenticity’ than any other, at least in terms of its meaning to those who use it.