This concern for revision is not news to the Episcopal Church's Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music. "You've discussed lectionary readings that give anti-Jewish impressions in response to a General Convention resolution in 2006, and then at the next three triennial meetings. (Resolutions C001 of 2006, Resolve 3 of A089 of 2009, A058 of 2012 and A062 of 2015) The problem continues. The problem gets raised by parishioners and priests, every year. I know because they write to me."

"The parish Worship Committee has questioned the lack of sensitivity toward the Jewish people in continuing the practice of reading John's Passion narrative on Good Friday, asking that John's Passion be eliminated, and another Passion narrative be read in its place.

"Rather than address the difficult verses in a parish newsletter--when the damage is either already done or about to be done, and recognizing that not everyone reads the newsletters--change the lectionary."

Really. The Episcopal Church, which has already changed the definition of marriage to include unbiblical homoerotic relationships is now being told by a Jewish theologian that the Jews were not somehow responsible for the death of Christ.

Well, I have news for Rabbi Levine, the Jews were responsible for the death of Christ, along with the Romans, in fact, the entire human race. Jesus' death was universal...for the sins of the world, which must be individually appropriated for our salvation.

Should the Church abandon Johann Sebastian Bach in his St. John Passion just to please overly sensitive Jewish feelings? It has been argued that Bach shows some anti-Semitism through the musical elements and lyrics of this oratorio.

The Passion is not anti-Jewish, any more than were the psalms or other biblical books that were mined for the imagery. After all, the just One, his admirers and the wicked opponents were all Jews.

The 2015 Episcopal General Ordination Open-Resource Exam question on "Holy Scriptures" included the question, "Each year your parish reads John's Passion account (John 18:1--19:37) as part of the Good Friday Liturgy from The Book of Common Prayer.

The "offending verses" are found in Chapter 18: "Once more Pilate went out and said to the chief priests, "Look, I am bringing him out to you " So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple cloak. And he said to them, "Behold, the man!" When the chief priests and the guards saw him, they cried out, "Crucify him, crucify him!" Pilate went back into the praetorium and said to Jesus, "Where are you from?" Jesus did not answer him.

"From then on Pilate tried to release him, but the Jews cried out, If you release this man, you are no friend of the emperor. Everyone who claims to be a king sets himself against the emperor.

John: When Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus outside and sat on the judge's bench at a place called The Stone Pavement, or in Hebrew Gabbatha. Now it was the day of Preparation for the Passover; and it was about noon. Pilate said to the Jews,
Pilate: Here is your King!
John: They cried out,
Chief Priests: Away with him! Away with him! Crucify him!
John: Pilate asked them,
Pilate: Shall I crucify your King?
John: The chief priests answered,
Chief Priests: We have no king but the emperor.
John: Then he handed him over to them to be crucified. So they took Jesus; and carrying the cross by himself, he went out to what is called The Place of the Skull, which in Hebrew is called Golgotha. There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, with Jesus between them.

Levine says such passages show a lack of sensitivity toward the Jewish people in continuing the practice of reading John's Passion narrative on Good Friday. She is asking that John's Passion be eliminated, and another Passion narrative be read in its place.

Rather than address the difficult verses in a parish newsletter--when the damage is either already done or about to be done, and recognizing that not everyone reads the newsletters--change the lectionary, says Levine.

Now this is not the first time the Jews wanted to kill Jesus. John records in chapter 7:1 "After this, Jesus went around in Galilee. He did not want to go about in Judea because the Jewish leaders there were looking for a way to kill him."

And again, in John 10: 31 we read, "The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him."

To argue that the Jews were not responsible in part for the death of Jesus is to do violence to the text of Scripture and to history.

Now Levine is no fool. She understands that linguistic changes are not going to change anything. She writes, "Attempts to change translations of John's account, from "the Jews" to "Jewish leaders" are unfaithful to what the text says. John's initial readers were not stopping at each of the 70 uses of Ioudaioi to say, "Are they talking here about leaders or all Jews?" John knows the terms "Pharisee" and "high priest"; had he wished to specify leaders, he easily could have done so. Nor do Pharisees have "authority" over the people, and the only "authority" the priests have concern the Temple or various engagements with Pilate. They have no "authority" over synagogues or the lives of average Jews."

"Rather than be unfaithful to what the text says, change the lectionary. Not everything has to be preached to the faithful during holy week or on a Sunday," argues Levine.

NT scholar Raymond E. Brown disagrees and writes; "This stage of reflection on the passion was not anti-Jewish, any more than were the psalms or other biblical books that were mined for the imagery. After all, the just one, his admirers and the wicked opponents were all Jews. And the theological simplification of the opponents as wicked is a standard biblical portrayal, not a nefarious Christian falsification."

And what of the apostle Paul (himself a high-born Jew), who writes in 1 Thessalonians 2:14--16, "that the Churches in Judea had been persecuted by the Jews who killed Jesus and that such people displease God, oppose all men, and had prevented Paul from speaking to the gentile nations concerning the New Testament message."

Levine will not have any word games being played out to soften the text. She wants the complete elimination of the lectionary reading; nothing less will satisfy her.

Will the Liturgy Committee cave into her? In all probability, yes. They caved in over homosexual marriage, resulting in double digit bishops leaving TEC along with 100,000 of the faithful.

Will anyone now and in the future who has a beef about something in the lectionary, Prayer Book or even the Bible demand that the "offending verses" be removed. If so, will TEC just say yes and finally admit it is now basically Unitarian in theology.

END