How To Bridge The Gap? Teacher Educators' Approaches To The Teaching of The Biblical "Other" in Kindergarten

Journal of Jewish Education
ISSN: 1524-4113 (Print) 1554-611X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujje20
How to Bridge the Gap? Teacher Educators’

Approaches to the Teaching of the Biblical “Other”
in Kindergarten
Sigal Achituv & Shulamit Manzura
To cite this article: Sigal Achituv & Shulamit Manzura (2016) How to Bridge the Gap? Teacher
Educators’ Approaches to the Teaching of the Biblical “Other” in Kindergarten, Journal of Jewish
Education, 82:3, 231-257, DOI: 10.1080/15244113.2016.1199255
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15244113.2016.1199255
Published online: 05 Aug 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujje20
Download by: [University of Pennsylvania] Date: 07 August 2016, At: 05:56

JOURNAL OF JEWISH EDUCATION
2016, VOL. 82, NO. 3, 231–257
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15244113.2016.1199255
How to Bridge the Gap? Teacher Educators’ Approaches to

the Teaching of the Biblical “Other” in Kindergarten
Sigal Achituv and Shulamit Manzura
ABSTRACT
This article summarizes a study of the viewpoints of Bible
lecturers in the Kindergarten Education Department while
teaching content related to the biblical “other.” The study, by
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 05:56 07 August 2016
two researchers themselves part of the study population, was

conducted according to the qualitative approach and included
interviews with participants from a State Education and a
State-Religious college. The findings highlight the different
points of origin vis-à-vis Bible studies and the search for the
connection between the “other” of the Bible, the students’ own
world and later, that of the children while indicating discre-
pancies between declared objectives and the characteristics of
the students.
Introduction
This article is the product of a study, the first of its kind, on lecturers
teaching Bible in Early Childhood (up to age 6) Education faculties.1 The
study examined their standpoints regarding the teaching of content related to
the biblical “other” in the college courses they teach and those taught by the
teachers in kindergarten. The study was conducted in accordance with the
qualitative approach and included interviews with all the Early Childhood
Education Bible lecturers teaching in the Early Childhood Education
Departments at the State-Religious Education “Yuvalim” Academic College
of Education and at the State Education “Olamot” Academic College. This
study featured a unique methodological feature in that the researchers them-
selves are part of the study population.
The colleges participating in the study differ from each other in three main
aspects:
Dr. Sigal Achituv is a lecturer in the Early Childhood Department at Olamot Academic College and Gordon Academic
College, as well as a research colleague in the postdoctorate program of MOFET Institute. E-mail: sigalah1@gmail.com
Dr. Shulamit Manzura is a lecturer and pedagogical instructor in the Early Childhood Department at Olamot Academic
College and Yuvalim Academic College. E-mail: shulamitman@gmail.com
1
At Olamot College, the subject is called “Bible” and at Yuvalim—Tanakh. For convenience, in this study we will use
the term “Bible.” The names of the colleges are fictional.
© 2016 Network for Research in Jewish Education
232 S. ACHITUV AND S. MANZURA
(1) The student population: At Yuvalim the population is predominantly

religious, only female Jewish students study in the Early Childhood
Education faculty. At Olamot the population is varied but the majority
is not religious. Most of the students in the Early Childhood Education
faculty are female; the majority Jewish.
(2) Further to the previous clause, Yuvalim College trains its students
for employment in the State-Religious Education system while
Olamot trains its students for employment in the State
Education sector.
(3) The political-ideological orientation of the two colleges’ management
also differs: Yuvalim, as a State-Religious college possessing a Zionist
religious nature, is predominantly right wing while Olamot, as a
college with a close affiliation to the kibbutz movement, possesses a

left-wing orientation. This aspect is not a formal one and is not
expressed in the colleges’ vision statement or published curriculum.
Literary review
The literary review consists of four sections: the first section will deal with
the teaching of Bible in Israeli kindergartens, the second will deal with
teachers’ educational approaches in general and in particular those related
to the teaching of Bible. The third section will examine the question of the
“other” in the Bible that comprises part of the issue of morality in the Bible.
The final section of the review will present relevant components of the Bible
studies curriculum at the two colleges participating in the study, and the
connection between these curricula and those of Bible studies in Israeli
kindergartens of the State (secular) and State-Religious Education sectors.
Teaching Bible in kindergarten in Israel

Moshe Ilan (2011), the former director of the Curriculum Development
Department in the Israeli Ministry of Education, indicates the centrality of
the Bible in early childhood education:
All curricula composed in Israel, including those in the pre-State period of the
Yishuv, and since the establishment of the State in 1948, included an initial
acquaintance of the pupils in the formal or compulsory education systems with
the stories of the Bible already at a very early age … not just the Religious-State
education system but also the general State education system placed the study of
the Bible at the center of its curriculum.
According to Ilan, recent years’ curricula have also “not renounced the
centrality of the Bible as constitutive literature, and not relinquished the
kindergarten as a place in which we meet … the stories of the Bible.” Koboby
echoes a similar sentiment (1992): “Many of the Bible stories are repeatedly
JOURNAL OF JEWISH EDUCATION 233
told to the children already in kindergarten” (p. 144). The fact that the pupil
encounters the same stories again and again is sufficient “for the influence of
the Bible on the child’s soul to be significant” (p. 144).
The stories of the Bible therefore constitute part of the official kindergarten
curriculum in Israel while in practice receiving different expression in each of the
sectors. In the State-Religious kindergarten the Bible stories have a central role.
Some of the kindergarten teachers tell the stories according to the order of the
weekly parshat hashavua read in the synagogue but most adopt the “Torah story”
approach focusing mainly on the stories in the Books of Genesis and Exodus—in
accordance with the “Kindergarten Teachers’ Guide”: Matchilim M’Breishit
(Ministry of Education–Pedagogical Administration, 2002; Ministry of
Education–Pedagogical Administration, 2013)—as well as the stories of the
books: Esther and Ruth. Bible stories are also told in the State Education kinder-
gartens although they generally occupy a less central role. In compulsory kinder-
garten (ages 5–6), some of the teachers tell Bible stories regularly throughout
the year and most tell (from age 4) selected stories: The Creation and the Flood,
the Forefathers and Joseph; and those stories connected to the Jewish festivals: the
story of the Exodus from Egypt-Passover, the giving of the Torah and book of
Ruth-Shavuot, and the book of Esther-Purim—in accordance with the
“Kindergarten Teachers’ Guide”: The Stories of the Forefathers and Joseph:
Breishit LaGil Harach (Ministry of Education–Pedagogical Administration,
1992); Yetziat Mitzrayim U-Matan Torah (Ministry of Education–Pedagogical
Administration, 1982a; Ministry of Education–Pedagogical Administration,
1982b).
Accordingly, the Early Childhood Education Department at Israeli
education colleges also includes courses in Bible proficiency aimed at
deepening the knowledge of the Bible of those training in kindergarten
teaching, and didactics courses, intended to grant tools for the adapted
teaching of Bible in kindergarten. These tools relate, among others, to the
selection of appropriate Bible stories, to the coping with the language of
the Bible and with emotionally complex stories, and to the meeting with
the reality remote from the world of the kindergarten children. The
students are thereby exposed to modes of coping with moral dilemmas
such as the relation to the biblical “other.” The participants in the current
study are, as mentioned, the lecturers teaching Bible and Bible didactics
courses.
The reference to the moral aspect in the Bible stories as constituting an
influence on the emotional health and values of the young child is also
expressed in the “Kindergarten Teachers’ Guide” (mentioned above) and in
the guidelines to the teacher appearing in the kindergarten Bible curriculum.
Various articles in the Israeli kindergarten teachers’ journal “Hed Ha-Gan”
present operative methods for teaching Bible in kindergarten including deal-
ing with moral issues (Hed Ha-Gan, 2005).
Teachers’ educational approaches

An educational approach consists of foundations from a number of spheres:
cultural, personal, and theoretical (Elbaz, 1981). Studies confirm the claim
that the teacher’s identity—her views, values, beliefs, and opinions—are
reflected in her professional decisions, in addition to the professional knowl-
edge she acquires independently (Grossman, 1990; Gudmundsdottir, 1990;
Levy, 2005; Shkedi & Horenczyk, 1995; Shulman, 1987).
Billig et al. (1988, as cited in Shkedi & Nissan, 2009) classify teachers’
ideologies as belonging to “a living ideology” which constitutes a combina-
tion of overt and hidden beliefs that evolve from the experience of a
particular cultural context. This ideology is interactive and includes percep-
tions regarding various fields. The sum-total of these perceptions crystallize
in the teachers’ consciousness to an ideal all-inclusive view, despite the fact

that this view is inconsistent, contains internal contradictions, and includes
vague formulations (Elbaz-Luwisch, 2005).
Researchers point to the fact that school and kindergarten teachers’
personal ideologies influences their perceptions relating to the teaching
of Bible as well as their teaching of Bible in practice (Achituv, 2012;
Shkedi & Nissan, 2009). The choice of approach to be used by the Bible
teacher is therefore dependent on her identity, both religious and educa-
tional, and thereby reflects it accordingly. In this current study, the
multifaceted nature of “living ideology” is expressed, among others, by
expressions of the hidden knowledge—“Theory in Action”—described in
the lecturers’ accounts of their actions in practice alongside their visible
knowledge—their “Exposed Theory” (Shkedi, 2003).
Approaches to teaching Bible

A number of different approaches can be discerned within the discipline of
teaching Bible in the education system, regarding the objective of Bible
studies (Adar, 1953; Holtz, 2003). Shkedi and Nissan (2006) present three
main approaches to teaching Bible: the disciplinary, the normative, and the
cultural.
The disciplinary approach maintains that the Bible is a universal work
and should therefore be related to as a text subject to examination and
historical-scientific study and not as a source of binding values for the
teacher or students. One studying Bible according to this approach does
obviously not find herself embroiled in any moral dilemma.
The normative-conceptual approach views the Bible as a holy text given to
the Jewish people. According to this approach, the Bible contains traditional
religious values that obligate both teacher and students. These values are
considered sacred and therefore as good and right, and ones to which we
must adapt our moral attitudes. The student is of course obligated to first
interpret the content of these values but must refrain from projecting his own
modern values onto the Bible.
The cultural approach views the Bible as a national cultural work that
expresses different humanistic and national values. According to this approach,
the Bible represents a common Jewish cultural language in which various
ethical questions can be dealt with. The cultural approach can be divided
into three subperceptions distinguished from each other by their approach to
the form of discussion within the Bible studies framework. The first of these
views the Bible as a source for the bestowment of national or moral and social
values; the second emphasizes the tension between the Bible’s values and those
of modernity and liberalism, and the third stresses the personal dimension
which enables a contemporary person to find in the Bible an echo of his own
personal feelings and values.
The attitude to the “Other” in the Bible

This study examines the lecturers’ views on the issue of teaching about the
“other” in Bible studies, a question which comprises part of a broader
issue of morals in the Bible. The term “other” is translated in the dic-
tionary in the following terms: dissimilar, different, other person, not the
same person, stranger, gentile. Who then is the biblical “other”? If we
relate to most of the Bible’s chapters, the biblical “other” is anyone other
than one of the men belonging to the people of Israel. These could include
a child, a woman, a slave, a gentile, and others. An initial scrutiny of the
Bible reveals its attitude towards these “others.” The Bible contains striking
moral commands relating to the orphan, the widow, the disabled, and the
convert; however, the solutions it provides to the ethical problems regard-
ing other groups or individuals may occasionally arouse reservations and
be difficult to digest for the contemporary reader (Achituv, 2012; Cohen,
1997), as the gulf between the Bible and modernity may evoke complex
philosophical and moral questions (Holtz, 2003, pp. 129–136). The Bible’s
attitude vis-à-vis the gentile “other” distinguishes between his “level of
otherness” and the attitude toward him (Carmon, 2007; Elitzur, 2001;
Kamm, 2001; Sagi, 1994). For the reader from a modern-day philosophical
and moral world, questions regarding the gentile “other” may color not
only the human heroes of the Bible in a problematic light, but even God
himself. These questions are considered as one of the central challenges
facing Bible students. Bible teachers and their teachers ask themselves how
to present these complex issues to their students. The main difference
between the various manners of dealing with this challenge is rooted in the
teacher’s approach to teaching Bible and his personal ideology (see pre-
vious chapter).
Holtz (2003) presents five manners of dealing with ethical difficulties in

the text, all of which are based on recognizing the existence of moral tension.
The first of these is corrective interpretation which aims to find the correct
moral approaches in the Bible in the eyes of the commentator and, to this
end, allows him to interpret the Bible such that the outcome is, as far as he is
concerned, “successful.” The second manner relies on existing interpretations
that come themselves as part of the tradition, and which confront the
problems. This manner is problematic in Holtz’s opinion as in many cases
it becomes apparent that the moral tensions between the biblical approach
and our own are replaced by the tension between the traditional interpreta-
tion and our approach, and remain unresolved. The third and fourth man-
ners recognize the existence of the problems and propose that the teacher
confront the students with them without providing them solutions, and the
fifth manner explains the tensions by the distance between us and the Bible.
The occupation with the issue of the biblical “other” in the context of
training kindergarten teachers is also relevant as part of educating to mor-
ality, both on the level of the education trainees and that of the actual
education in the kindergarten. A conversation on the biblical “other” may
serve as a means for raising different views, for coping with moral dilemmas,
and for attaining soften judgment. Inviting a moral discussion and encoura-
ging the students to critical thinking and moral distinctions enables the
fashioning of a self-identity as a prerequisite for a real encounter with the
“other” and his culture (Alexander, 2001, 2005, 2009; Rosenberg, 2005).
These aspects of educating to morality are relevant both in the context of
training kindergarten teachers in college and in that of their future work with
kindergarten children in the field of teaching Bible and beyond.
Bible studies in colleges of education and in the kindergarten curricula

In light of the approaches to Bible teaching presented above, this section will
review the attitudes of the two colleges participating in the study as they
appear on the colleges’ websites. In addition, the approaches to teaching Bible
appearing in the State-Religious and the State kindergarten Bible Studies
curricula will also be presented.
Bible studies at Olamot College are presented on their website as follows:
The encounter with the Bible invites a fascinating journey to the deep roots of
Jewish culture. The Bible is the national book of remembrance, a reflection of all
modes of human and social life, and a personal opportunity for introspection. The
Bible has recently made a comeback to the center-stage and a wide range of circles
are seeking to reacquaint themselves with the spiritual treasures of Jewish culture—
that found in the interpretation of the Oral Law and in its philosophy. Meaning
and spiritual life in the modern world and new and relevant definitions of Jewish
identity in Israeli society.
The Bible studies faculty at Olamot College presents a national-cultural

approach to Bible studies (Shkedi & Nisan, 2006), and views the Bible as a
source of the national spiritual treasures, of their recognition, and their
assimilation.
At Yuvalim College Bible studies are presented as:
a base of the belief in God, of the observance of the commandments, and of the
connection between the people of Israel and its land. The faculty’s study objective
is to bring the student closer to the Bible and to strengthen her emotional and
intellectual bond with its content.
Another main objective of the faculty is the instillment of learning skills—

including the ability to distinguish between literal and homiletic interpreta-
tions, analysis of the text from a literary point of view, and the understanding
of traditional and contemporary Jewish commentaries. The central overall
objective of the studies is to develop a bond of believing between the studies
and the student.
The Bible Studies Department at Yuvalim College presents a predomi-
nantly normative approach to Bible studies (Shkedi & Nisan, 2006): it
accords value to the actual study of the Bible and regards it as a source of
religious faith and commandments that obligate those studying it.
These differences between the two colleges in their Bible studies objectives
are also reflected in the differences between Bible curriculum in the State-
Religious kindergarten and that of its State Education counterpart.
For example, the difference in the “motto” that appears at the beginning of
the two curricula: In that of the State Education kindergartens the Bible, the
book of books, is the cultural infrastructure of the Jewish people and its
heritage. The text tells the story of the people’s evolution and its connection
to the Land of Israel. The child’s exposure to the story and its content is an
important element in the formulation of his national-cultural makeup. The
kindergarten’s main emphasis is on the personal and cultural experience in
the meeting with the Bible story and its heroes (Ministry of Education,
Culture and Sport).
In the State-Religious kindergarten curriculum, study of the Torah is
special in that it is itself an obligation and also constitutes a base for religious
education as a whole. The Torah is the foundation and nucleus of belief and
the fulfillment of the commandments, of the Jewish culture, and Jewish way
of life that developed over the generations. The Torah is the binding source
of national values, and from it derives the undisputed right over the
Promised Land. The Torah is the base for ideas, concepts, symbols and the
rationale in State-Religious education (Ministry of Education, Culture and
Sport).
The Bible studies curricula in the State and the State-Religious Education
colleges therefore conform closely, although not completely, to those of the
Ministry of Education for these two sectors: In the State Education curricu-
lum, as in that of the Olamot College, it is the cultural approach that is
presented. In contrast, the normative approach, constituting the base for
teaching Bible at Yuvalim College, is expressed in the State-Religious curri-
culum together with the cultural approach.
Methodology
The three questions at the center of this study
(1) What are the lecturers’ viewpoints vis-à-vis teaching content related to
the biblical “other” on the students’ level?
(2) What are the lecturers’ viewpoints vis-à-vis the linking of the biblical
“other” to contemporary social, moral, and educational issues on the

students’ level?
(3) What are the lecturers’ viewpoints vis-à-vis the teaching of content
connected to the “other” in Bible stories in the kindergarten?
Type of research
This article describes a collaborative research study conducted by two
researchers, the authors of the article, using a qualitative paradigm (Shkedi,
2003). According to Clandinin (1985), the qualitative researcher cannot enter
the research field as a neutral person. He possesses his own practical knowl-
edge that “communicates” with that of the study participants (p. 365). In
light of the unique relationship between ourselves and the study participants
in the current study, this claim bears especially significant weight: We are
simultaneously conducting the study and, by virtue of belonging to the staff
teaching Bible courses to preschooler teachers at the two colleges are also
part of the population being studied. We are therefore also “wearing two
additional hats” in the context of this study—being both colleagues of the
study participants and participants in the study ourselves. The special con-
nection described conforms to the stance that Noddings (1986) calls “caring.”
The “caring” relations that characterize the current study lead to an equiva-
lent dialogue in which all participants feel part of the same community.
The course of the study

The study is based on nine in-depth interviews of between 60–90 minutes
with each interviewee. The semistructured interviews were conducted during
the months of October–November 2013, were fully recorded and transcribed.
At the end of this stage, we interviewed each other using the same interview
guide. All the interviews were analyzed according to Strauss and Corbin’s
(1990) approach that was developed by Shkedi (2003) and includes open,
delineating, and focused coding. The central themes arising from the analysis
appear below in the study’s findings. In addition, relevant documents were
also analyzed: objectives of teaching Bible at the colleges—from the colleges’
websites, and the objectives of teaching Bible in kindergarten—from the
Ministry of Education curriculum. As both the instigators of, and partici-
pants in, the study, the methodology we used integrated classical “case study”
and “self-study.” The stated objective of self-study is the desire for improve-
ment and change and the narrowing of the significant gulf characteristic of
educational research between educational practice in the field and research
(Russell, 2002).
Research population
The target population for this study is Bible studies lecturers teaching the students
of the Early Childhood Education faculties at the Olamot and Yuvalim Colleges.
The reasons for choosing these colleges: (a) As lecturers in these colleges they offer
natural fields for conducting a research among colleagues and opportunities for
self-research; (b) in light of the differences between the two colleges presented in
the Introduction we assume that the findings will be rich. Consequently, these will
provide Early Childhood teachers’ preparation programs secular and religious
important understandings as for teaching Bible in early childhood settings.
Characteristics of the participants: Seven of the nine participants have a PhD
degree. One of the participants is a doctoral student and another holds a Master’s
degree. The lecturers that teach courses in Bible proficiency (except one) pre-
viously taught this subject at the school level. The lecturers that teach courses in
Bible didactics of kindergarten Bible teaching were previously kindergarten tea-
chers themselves. The study encompasses 100% of the relevant population: all the
lecturers who, during the time of the study, were engaged in teaching Bible to
students in the Early Childhood Education faculties at the two colleges, and
includes four lecturers from Olamot and five from Yuvalim.
Viewpoint of the researchers conducting this study

The study’s researchers share a similar professional background—we both worked
at the beginning of our professional careers as kindergarten teachers and have
dealt for many years in training kindergarten teachers—Sigal as a supervisor in the
State-Religious Education system and Shulamit as a pedagogic instructor of
students at education colleges and as a kindergarten teacher guide for the
Ministry of Education. We both have experience in qualitative method research
and currently teach, among others, Early Childhood Bible didactics courses at
education colleges. On a personal level, we both belong to the religious Zionist
society and have maintained both professional and personal relations for many
years. The relationship between us as coresearchers were characterized as a full
partnership based on equality, mutual support, and joint initiative. We used an

“integrative pattern,” meaning joint work on design, development, research, and
writing and full collaboration on conclusions and results (Azar, 2014; Kozminsky,
2009). Regarding the content of the study, we both believe in the importance of
developing a moral dialogue developmentally adapted from the youngest age and
therefore regard the topic of the study to be highly relevant to the training of the
students as future kindergarten teachers.
Study findings
Three themes can be identified in the study’s findings. These themes will be
briefly presented together with quotations from the participants that
strengthen their claims: The first theme deals with the lecturers’ perceptions
of the difficulties involved in teaching Bible at the college. The second theme
deals with the lecturers’ perceptions of the objectives of teaching Bible
Studies at the college. The third theme, which constitutes the core of the
study, is the lecturers’ perception of the issue of the “other” in Bible teaching.
In practice, this theme is included within the previous themes as the issue of
the biblical “other” is perceived by the lecturers both as part of the difficulties
and of the objectives of its teaching.
The lecturers’ perceptions of the difficulties in teaching Bible at the college

Difficulties common to both colleges
A Perception of Low Capability—The participants claim that many students
possess a big fear of the biblical language: “They are in uncharted waters as
far as they are concerned …” (Olamot). The lecturers from Yuvalim claim
that some of the fear stems from the religious approach: “A lot of fear, a lot
of fear and the objective is to reduce the fear and to enhance their perception
of their ability … who am I to even understand it?”
Disinterest in the Field and Its Connection to Study Obligation—In the
participants’ opinion, the majority of the students do not show an interest in
Bible studies and this field is connected for them to their lack of fondness for
it already from their period at high school: “The Bible is that boring blue or
black book with those black letters that they forced me to open at high school
and understand what’s written in it, and I never understood a word …
and it didn’t mean anything to me” (Olamot). “They are a bit like
seminary pupils—many of them didn’t enjoy this subject then either.
They like to summarize and to know what the bottom line is; what I’ll
ask them in the exam” (Yuvalim). In addition, at Yuvalim, the disinterest
is also perceived as the void between the religious and academic worlds of
which Bible studies is considered part. Many students do not attribute to
the studies any religious value relevant to their own personal world: “They
don’t connect the fact that they are studying Bible and the fact that they
are religious. It’s not something that is important to their lives—studying
Torah is not a value in of itself (for girls)… . It’s a subject they studied,
for high school graduation too, but it doesn’t really touch them, they
don’t feel that they should learn something from it, they make a distinc-
tion between the events and the characters portrayed in the Bible and the
world of halakha” (Yuvalim).
Fear of Dealing with Complex Content—According to the study’s parti-
cipants, coping with complex moral issues does not concern most of the
students at both colleges. “A statement according to which we are in favor
or against Hagar (the story of Hagar’s banishment) is completely irrelevant
to my students. What does occupy them a lot is the question whether it’s
possible to tell them a story such as Cain and Abel and what it will do to the
child, and how can they possibly cause the child such trauma.” The lec-
turers from Yuvalim express the students’ fear of complex content as also
stemming from the need to recognize the imperfection of the Bible’s heroes:
“Anyone who says that David sinned is wrong… .2 There is a lot of fear
surrounding the teaching of Bible because the Bible is so noble.”
Difficulty in Impracticable Study—The lecturers from both the colleges
see difficulty in teaching content that is perceived by the students as detached
from the teaching methods in kindergarten: “They want me to immediately
teach them what to do in the kindergarten and my view is that they first need
to accumulate knowledge and only then translate it into action in the
kindergarten” (Olamot). “They are very interested in the didactics because
they want to do something with it, but if we sit and try and learn a chapter or
text or story with them on an adult level…” (Yuvalim).
Difficulties presented by the lecturers at Olamot

Superficial Knowledge of the Biblical Text—For the lecturers at Olamot,
unfamiliarity with the Bible is perceived as a central difficulty: “Many of the
girls that come to Olamot possess only very superficial knowledge of the
stories. Their last memory is approximately what they were told themselves
at kindergarten… . I need to first teach them the story.”
A Sense of Alienation Stemming from the Assumption that the Bible
Obligates a Religious Approach—According to the lecturers, the assump-
tion of secular students, comprising the majority of the students at Olamot,
that Bible Studies necessitates a religious approach raises difficulties: “It’s for
religious people and it’s coercion to have to study it. Why should we even
teach it? … I don’t believe in it, I’m not religious and I don’t want any
connection with the Bible.” According to one of the lecturers, this attitude is
enhanced in some of the (secular) kindergartens in which the students obtain
2
Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Shabbat 56a.
experience and are exposed to kindergarten teachers’ and parents’ anxieties

regarding teaching Bible in kindergarten.
A difficulty presented by the Yuvalim lecturers

The Difficulty in Accepting Alternative Interpretation—Commentary
constitutes part and parcel of Bible studies and the lecturers regard
comprehension of the classical commentaries as a significant difficulty.
The main difficulty, however, is in the acceptance of nonclassical com-
mentaries and some of them describe suspicion toward such interpreta-
tions. “In the past, they would ask me whose opinion that is. In other
words, if I or someone else would propose a solution, they would some-
times ask which of the classical commentators’ opinion that was … it is
often expressed by anger, attacks against me, how dare I and who gave me
the authority?”
The lecturers’ perception of their objectives in teaching Bible to students

Education to self-study, thought development, asking questions, and
raising doubt
All the participants view this objective as fundamental: “We attempt to build
a profile of an independent student … to educate towards a closely aligned
reading of the text” (Olamot).
Despite the fact that all the participants in the study regard education
toward asking questions and raising doubt as one of the objectives of
teaching, the manner in which the lecturers at Yuvalim deal with the
perception of their role in the field of educating to ask questions and
cast doubt is unique because of the students’ objections to studying in
this way: “You’re scared, you hold onto something because you believe
in it and to suddenly relinquish it is a really jolting and unsettling
experience… . (We) often try and help them to raise questions and
feel self-confident that it’s legitimate to do so … we try and get them
used to asking questions … learning starts from the point at which one
leaves his/her comfort zone.” One of the methods adopted by the study
participants at Yuvalim is the use of questions asked by the traditional
commentators: “Via the commentator one is allowed to do things that
are perhaps problematic… . I adopted the term ‘constructive doubt’ …
it’s precisely doubt that can build you and open you up … to give a
place of respect to the question.”
“Rehabilitation” of the Bible study experience

All the participants view the “rehabilitation” of the Bible study experience as
experienced during the years of study at high school as a teaching objective:
“The Bible is something else completely that doesn’t even have to be studied
from the head but rather from the heart and from the gut too. My attitude
towards the Bible completely changed and suddenly I can connect to it”
(Olamot). The lecturers from Yuvalim likewise describe their desire to
change the study methods that the students adopted during their time at
high school; however, their focus is on the process toward critical study that
the students need to and are capable of undergoing: “They are suddenly able,
for the first time, to forsake their studies from the past; they say that if there
are so many difficult Torah stories, maybe it’s better not tell any at all?”
Encouragement of different of opinions and interpretations

Some of the study participants from both colleges present the encouragement
of multiple opinions in the classroom as a central objective of teaching: “You
are smart students—each one will choose her own opinion” (Olamot). “You
can sit in the same classroom and say contrary things, so that in fact the
objective is—to rethink and meet other opinions, and to see that the Rabbis
also had differing opinions” (Yuvalim). One of the lecturers from Yuvalim
tells of a student who presented modesty as a central value in the story of
Abraham and Sarah” and one of the other participants said: “… I regard the
fact that Sarah stayed in the tent as a very big disadvantage—she was not a
full partner to the process that Abraham underwent… . I say to them: ‘here
we are, it’s not just different views but contradictory opinions of the same
biblical text. The question is—do we allow such a dialogue in the kindergar-
ten? This question provoked a very lively discussion.”
Development of awareness and tools for developmentally appropriate

practice in kindergarten
All the participants teaching the didactics of Bible teaching in kindergar-
ten and some of the other participants, view the development of awareness
and tools for adapted teaching in kindergarten as a central objective: “One
of the main objectives is to bring the knowledge we have of children and
of the ways they learn, to the Torah stories course, to make the connection
between them, and to see if there really is a holistic philosophy that is
right for 11 am when we do hand painting but is also right for 8 am when
I tell the story… . The objective is to help the child traverse the story safely”
(Yuvalim). “It’s extremely important to me that they get close to the stories
and that they look at them from a child’s perspective … (Olamot). “I suggest
to them in a friendly manner that they skip the story of Cain and Abel for
example, I don’t think that you should undermine a kindergarten age child in
any way so as not to overly complicate his world… . One of the main things
that occupy them is what to do with God and what will happen if a child
asks if there is a God, what can I do? It’s a question that is asked repeatedly. I
answer them by telling them to ask the child what he/she thinks, and how
they see it” (Olamot). “Last year, when I taught the Sacrifice of Isaac, I asked
the students if they would have taught the story in kindergarten, what they
would have done with it—I would sometimes ask questions like that … for
example, I would ask them how they would portray Rebecca who told Jacob
to deceive his father—that interested me a lot … it’s very problematic that
the answer in the Book of Genesis is often separation—you go one way and
I’ll go the other, like with Ishmael, Cain or others. Is that how you solve
a problem with your child? You tell him to go, you don’t get along with your
brother so you are expelled … especially if a child in kindergarten learns the
story of Ishmael or Esau, I wonder if he doesn’t ask himself if Mom and Dad
will be angry with him if they will expel him or his brother from the house?”
(Yuvalim).
Lecturers’ perception of the “Other” in teaching Bible

This section will deal with the lecturers’ perception of the issue of the “other” in
teaching Bible while relating to the following aspects: identification of the
“other,” the degree of student interest in the issue of “the other in the Bible,”
the degree of importance in dealing with the question of “the other in the Bible”
in teaching at college and the ways of approaching the issue, the question of the
relevance and actualization of the issue of the “other” in teaching at college, and
occupation with the question of preschool didactics of the issue of the “other.”
Who is the “Other”?

The lecturers at Yuvalim refer on the one hand to the biblical “other” and on
the other hand to the “internal” and “external” “other” in the students’ own
world. The internal “other” is mainly the secular Jew. The attitude toward
him, as the neighbor and family relative, is tolerant and inclusive. An
additional internal “other” is, in the students’ words, the “unisexual” that
they find more difficult to accept. The ultimate external “other” is the “Arab,”
perceived as an enemy: (because) “they are in close proximity to the injured
circle.”
The lecturers at Olamot use concepts such as “internal other” and “external
other” differently. The internal “other” is that present in the world of the
kindergarten children (children of different extractions) as opposed to the
external, political “other” such as immigrants and Palestinians, lacking an
immediate presence in their own world. The majority of lecturers at Olamot
refer to the “other” in terms of shaping identity. Forging identity is achieved by
dialogue with the “otherness”: “It is very fashionable now to talk about the
‘other,’ women are also considered ‘others,’ from Venus, Mars, there is also a
kind of otherness within myself—the ‘other’ is within me.” The biblical “other” is
also not an “other” but rather, a brother, such as Ishmael—“Isaac after nearly
being sacrificed goes to his brother and together they bury their father.” Another
distinction is between the classic “other”—Ruth, Samson, widows, orphans,
homosexuals—and a normative “other.” Each family contains a normative

“other”: “Someone who marries late, who does things differently… .” A further
aspect raised by one of the participants from Olamot is an expansion of the idea
of the “other.” She claims that the Bible itself can be viewed as the “other”—in
relation to secular people the Bible is the “other” because of its identification
with religion, while in relation to religious people—because it is the Talmud (and
not the Bible) that constitutes the central study source: “On the other hand, it’s
also an embarrassing ‘other’ because it’s not the Koran or the New Testament
which is really ‘other’—we don’t care about them, this is our ‘other’ but it is still
different.”
The level of students’ interest in the “Biblical Other”

The majority of the lecturers at the two colleges refer to the fact that moral
issues in the Bible—Hagar’s expulsion, Cain and Abel, Joshua, etc., including
those issues related to the attitude toward the “other”—do not interest most
of the students. The reasons for this vary between the colleges.
According to the lecturers from Yuvalim, the main reason for the low level of
interest in the “other” is connected to the students’ objection to a critical
observation of the Bible and to the raising of doubts surrounding its model
characters. The general perception is one of dichotomy and many students have
difficulty in viewing the complexity of different situations: “Esau is the wicked
one … Ishmael is the villain … they don’t have anything that redeems or frees
them from this perception… . Everything in the Bible is o.k… . They don’t see a
problem in killing everyone in the Book of Joshua.”
In addition, the majority of the students object to autonomous thought
and personal interpretation of the Bible: “That’s what is written and therefore
it’s moral… . The issue of the killing of the Seven Nations—I think that if I
didn’t bring it up and mention what a moral problem the chapter presents,
I’m not sure they would mention it… . For some of them it’s just something
they can’t relate to … to teach about the laws regarding slaves, the wars of
Joshua, and girls can say to you ‘what do you mean? God commanded it so
it’s not a problem.’ So here I have to really make an effort and say clearly that
obviously in the end if God commands something, it’s the right thing to do,
but we have to ask how we bridge this moral gap of having to kill women and
children.”
According to the lecturers at Olamot, the decisive factor in the students’
disinterest in the “other” issue in the Bible is the irrelevance of the Bible
for them: “I grew up my whole life in the Shomer HaTzair system, with
anti-Bible education; I don’t believe in it, I’m not religious and I don’t
want anything to do with it. It wasn’t something that had any significance
for me or that I wanted to get close to … suddenly … it’s coming to
undermine the entire world I’ve lived in until now. So what am I supposed
to do with this thing now?” The students’ complex feelings also have
ramifications on the atmosphere in class which evokes a myriad of mean-

ings for the various students: “… a very big argument started in class.
Others answered her: ‘How dare you talk like that? This is a book that
Jews have died for throughout history, the book of the Jewish people.”
According to one of the students from Olamot, a central cause for ignor-
ing the issue of the biblical “other” is the ‘mythical lens.’ She points to a
prevalently “anti and rabid attitude” toward the “political other.” While
some of the students “are very angry at this manner of teaching” which
encourages compassion toward the “other,” there are also a few students
who “come with a compassionate approach towards the ‘other.’” In her
opinion, the “mythical lens” that the students adopt, such as “the few
versus the many,” taints the text in a manner that does not enable them to
see its pshat meaning. “It never happened that someone said ‘yes, that’s
exactly how we are with the foreign workers.’ It’s not a pressing issue for
them to discuss but by contrast, there are those students for whom it’s
very important to prove how evil our enemies are.”
The level of importance and manners of dealing with the issue of the
“Other” in teaching at college
All the lecturers at both colleges stressed the importance of engaging in the
issue of the biblical “other.” For some this stems from the perception of their
role as educators: “A Bible lesson is about teaching values” (Olamot), “The
Bible teacher is also a guide for life” (Yuvalim).
At Yuvalim all the lecturers accord importance to the process that the
students undergo in their advancement toward greater awareness of moral
dilemmas. This challenge is perceived as “entering the esteemed company
of the Sages.” The lecturers mention different ways: becoming acquainted
with sources in rabbinic literature that deal with the legitimization of
criticism, encouraging the students to leave their comfort zone and
“dive into change” and understanding the evolution of morals in the
world.
Some of the lecturers are undecided about how much time to devote to
discussing the issue of the “other”: “In general the attitude toward kings in
the Book of Joshua is difficult for us, the kings that Joshua imprisons in a
cave and they actually die from starvation, arms and legs and all sorts of
behavior that we wouldn’t accept or agree with today, and then I’m faced
with the dilemma of whether to raise the issue for discussion or to ignore it.”
The lecturers at Olamot mention the means they implement in order to
develop the dialogue surrounding the issue of the “other.” The first of these is
visibly exposing the difficulties: “The Book of Joshua is the most striking
example… . The Torah explicitly commands the eradication of Amalek’s
descendants… . It’s a touchy subject, the Torah relates to Egypt in a shocking
way and employs collective punishment, and if you come from a traditionally
religious home … that’s the most wonderful thing; and to applaud each time
the Egyptians are smitten with a plague… . I raise these difficult issues.”
The lecturers from Olamot, like those from Yuvalim, also emphasize the
importance of considering the biblical context: “We must see that it is set in a
certain context, we must see the context from which these things stem.” In
addition, the lecturers at Olamot also strive to soften the students’ dichoto-
mist perception: “I try to show them that Pharaoh is not the complete
villain … captive in some situation from which he can’t really escape, and
God also plays a role in this; or to view Haman whose wife ridicules him and
to understand that he’s actually quite pitiful… .” According to one of the
lecturers from Olamot, the main tool is “exposing the mechanism of the
myth” so as to enable the development of critical thought in general and
moral thought in particular: “Stories that are myths become a sort of
spectacles through which we view reality … it has become more like contact
lenses, for example, we no longer have the ability to see that we are not the
few against the many—the myth doesn’t allow us compassion for others.”
The question of relevance and the actualization of the issue of the “Other” in
teaching Bible
Relevance is defined as the linking of new material to existing knowledge and
the creation of interest in new knowledge by making it meaningful for the
student, while actualization is defined as studying an issue in the present by
learning from the past.
Relevance is perceived by all the participants as a positive value in general
including the moral issues in the Bible. The lecturers enable, encourage, and
create opportunities to link the Bible in general and moral issues, including
that of the “other” in particular, to the students’ own lives.
At Yuvalim: “The discussion always comes around to the subject of life… .
The book is the most popular book there is, the content is there and now we
just need to connect to it, it really is relevant to teach the Torah of life… .
Bible class without a relevant discussion is not a Bible class. You learn about
the characters, you are like a pathologist analyzing the dead while you study
the Bible, but in order to learn about life and not to understand the dead …
we talked about the Tribe of Ephraim who was angry that they were not
called to battle. That’s an example of what to do when faced with someone
who is offended … what is this conflict, how you confront it, how you
undergo change, this all becomes a discussion about us.” Regarding the
relation to the “other” in the Bible, one of the participants uses the term
“cautious relevance” which distinguishes between then and now: “to peel
today’s morality away from the story.”
At Olamot: “I make an effort to come and make it accessible for them, to
turn it into something real so that the stories won’t be just somewhere back
then in the Bible but rather, they will be here and now.” In order that the
relation to the “other” be relevant for the students, one of the lecturers points
to the slavery in Egypt as impetus for the requirement for moral behavior: “I
present the United States with the slaves, bring contemporary historical
examples of slavery, and compare them to the people of Israel who were
not so humane, I show them the power of memory, that everyone should
regard himself as if he himself left Egypt.”
While transforming Bible study to relevant is a desired objective in the eyes of
or all the participants, opinions are divided regarding the question of actualiza-
tion—to what degree to allow or encourage discussion on current affairs issues
and especially those with a political slant. The lecturers at Yuvalim impose such
discussion while those at Olamot are divided on the issue.
At Yuvalim: “In the Book of Joshua … the present-day aspect is very
real … and it appears natural to me to ask if the situations are similar or
different. How do we do it today? I also talk to them intuitively about the

change in relation to morality, for example, one of the solutions I bring for
the question of how the Torah can even command the killing of an entire
population, is the well-known answer that that’s how wars were waged then,
for a long time it wasn’t considered anomalous, it’s only the Geneva
Convention and other documents that determined that you can’t behave
like that during war… . There is a famous article by Rabbi Kook about
morality and its evolution.” Dealing with the command to destroy the Seven
Nations is perceived by the lecturers as an opportunity to raise present-day
issues in order to arouse moral sensitivity: “I don’t just teach Joshua, I also
deal with education. Am I right? Every year I wait for someone to say that
they have a difficulty or problem with the war and the command to kill
everyone, and it surprises me anew every year, they don’t ask … because it’s
not a problem, they are Arabs, and Arabs are not Jewish, you see—many of
them regard the ‘other’ with derision and over the years it has become very
difficult for me. There are usually one or two who are disturbed by the fact
that we had to kill them all and who search for a way to understand it …
there were arguments in class, they usually immediately introduce their own
political opinions … that students should come and say that it’s moral? First
of all, there are things we don’t understand, including the morals of the
biblical world… . I don’t deduce from this on what is permitted or forbidden
for us today.”
Coping with the difficulties is also undertaken by turning to the commen-
tators: “The Sages say that Joshua married Rahab, in other words, there is
nothing racist involved, and precisely on this point I stress that … there are
people that we can’t live with, once their idolatry was dependent on them
killing their sons… . I mean, I do emphasize points that promote the
humanist message and reduce the problem.”
One of the lecturers claims that many students view the issue of the
“other” in light of Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi’s concept of “Segulat Yisrael”
(the specialness of Israel) as expounded in his book The Kuzari, according to

which the Jewish people possesses unique qualities that accord it a higher
standing than that of the other nations. In contrast to this, she presents them
the approach of the Rambam (Maimonides) “who claims that you are special
if you behave as someone special … the commandments provide us the
opportunity to be special, but you have to be special in order to be special,
it’s not something that is in-built and they come with the feeling that all the
non-Jews are evil and to be feared. I would say to them that the midwives
and doctors (in Egypt) were not Jewish and they would be shocked… .”
The lecturers at Yuvalim regard their teaching approach as a Jewish
approach to studying the Torah: “The Jewish approach does not portray the
characters as angels but rather the opposite—the beauty of the Bible is in its
complexity, its ambivalence and we can learn from that … we can empathize…
I mean, the Bible doesn’t always teach us the optimal example.”

According to the lecturers, they undergo a process of change in their
attitudes while at the college: “they undergo a transformation with me… . I
gave them binoculars and suddenly they can see in 3-D. Until now they only
saw a flat picture.”
The lecturers at Olamot answer this question relating to the variety of
the students’ ideologies. Some view the current-day discussion as an
opportunity to deal with dispute. To the question “What happens when
politically disputed nationalist subjects arise?” one of the lecturers
responds: “That’s the most interesting thing, I can place two girls at either
end of the blackboard, it’s very important to me, the argument is very
important, there is always the possibility that one of them will be offended
by something, it’s sensitive, you have to do these things carefully and
explain that there has to be a discussion.” Another lecturer claims that a
political current-affairs discussion is inevitable: “For example, in the book
of Ruth someone is travelling to another country … and he is not familiar
with the customs of that place; favoring one child over another that
causes hatred, I raise all these things. I try to avoid politics but I never
succeed.”
In contrast, other lecturers object to such a discussion: “It’s a Bible class.
It’s not professional; it’s not a synagogue sermon. When can it be linked to
present-day situations? When discussing universal, eternal things—sibling
relations, things like that—that transcend time. Not to be drawn into political
situations and ideologies, that is not allowed. In my opinion, that’s not
professional … on my professional level as a lecturer I don’t bring it up
because I teach Bible, period. If someone wants to talk or deduce from the
Bible to show where Rabin’s murder is written in the Bible, they can do it
during recess… . In no way should we make connections to current political
situations… . I stop them when they connect Ishmael to the Arabs. I don’t
agree with it.”
The question of preschool didactics of the issue of the “Other”

As described above, Bible stories are part of the kindergarten curriculum in
both the State and State-Religious Education systems in Israel and of the
kindergarten teachers’ training at the education colleges.
A phenomenon manifest at both colleges is that most of the lecturers
teaching Bible (and not Bible didactics at kindergarten), view the issue of the
biblical “other” as an opportunity to raise awareness about “otherness” from
an early age.
At Yuvalim, one of the lecturers, following in the footsteps of Uriel Simon,
uses the term “the didactic truth” to describe the balance between encoura-
ging the children to ask questions and the development of their ability to ask
in accordance with their understanding, and the refraining from raising
difficulties at an inappropriate age. Another says: “I would discuss with
them (the students) the question of the added value of each interpretation,
whether you want to present Esau as a villain in which case you consistently
display him in a negative light and the children receive a very clear and
unambiguous perception of him that is maybe more correct for this age—the
truth is that I don’t know enough and I would consult with professionals,
early childhood psychologists—or you want to show that people sometimes
behave one way and sometimes … in my opinion, that is maybe the more
correct approach because we are all like that, we have both negative and
positive feelings and it’s just a question of which prevails, sometimes I am
angry with my brother and want to hit him, what do I do or not… .”
At Olamot the lecturers advocate engaging in this issue at kindergarten:
“In every family there is someone who is different … it’s about accepting
others… . You need to accustom the child to it from kindergarten. You really
need to start from a very young age, children at kindergarten see it, see the
normative mothers and see the mothers who are at work all day and the
father serving as the mother … difference is the basis of humanity … when
you protect him too much he doesn’t encounter the world… . He needs to
know that there are all sorts of different people, you won’t get along with
everyone … maybe there is a child who is a bully and we can try and see his
point of view, or maybe he is not Jewish, or his background is different,
Ethiopian, Russian, etc.” By contrast, according to one of the lecturers, it is
not as important to directly deal at kindergarten with the “political other”
such as “the foreign refugees or the Palestinians: unfortunately the actualiza-
tion is often the impassioned and anti-others actualization.” She claims that
the manner in which the students, as future kindergarten teachers, view the
issue of the “other” will dictate the spirit of the story she tells in kindergarten:
“I try and enlighten the students to the fact that there is a difference between
identifying with Red Riding Hood and a child who says ‘we are fighting the
Greeks, we are fighting the Philistines, we beat the… . Why does a child say
that? Because the teacher says it, decide if you want to say it or not … you
create the myth.”
All the lecturers teaching the didactics of kindergarten Bible studies at
both colleges see importance in raising the students’ awareness to moral
issues in the Bible while bearing in mind the need for developmental
adaptation for preschool children. In their eyes, it is important to raise
moral issues from a belief in the children’s ability “to feel real and alive
feelings” for the characters and their actions, and to allow the students “an
open airspace … to roll in the mud of difficulty… .” In teaching complex
moral content in kindergarten they see the need to tell the pshat meaning and
to let the children decide about their opinion of the characters: “Yesterday I
read a student’s paper—she wrote that in her opinion we shouldn’t say that
Isaac loved Esau because it will be problematic in the eyes of the children… .
I wrote asking her what problems it would cause for the children, is it not
natural that a father loves his son?” The dichotomist approach is perceived as
problematic not just from a moral point of view but also as being not
emotionally appropriate: “I am the children’s defense attorney; I want to
listen to the story from my place as a child… . I want the Torah to be
accessible for me. If I hear too many scary and horrible stories and black and
white characters, it will be difficult for me to connect to that place.” The
perception of the researchers (who also participated in the study) on this
issue is demonstrated in the following section: Shulamit presents an approach
that balances between openness to complexity and adaptation to the emo-
tional ability and moral perception of the children in kindergarten: “Just as I
don’t try and fix the child’s outlook on the world using Piaget’s theories,
because I say that I respect the cognitive stage you are at, to the same degree
although I appreciate and respect your present position, that doesn’t obligate
me to present the world in a stereotypical manner and I am presenting you
with a model. It’s connected to Vygotsky’s approach of striving to raise the
child a millimeter above his current position. I tell of the complexity and you,
a young child—see how you deal with this complexity. I also enable, I
encourage the students to allow the children to really say things that are
not politically correct, it’s not nice that Abraham talks like that to Hagar… .
What I say to the students is that if a child feels complete confidence that
there is a sheltered discussion in the kindergarten, that the child is pro-
tected … then the different approaches arise during the discussion … natu-
rally I can tell the children that I see it differently.”
Sigal presents a similar approach but claims that “my problem is completely
different, it’s that they are not familiar with the story, I can’t do what you
(Shulamit) do with the stories of Joseph because they are not familiar with the
stories of Joseph and in order for me to succeed I need to first teach them the
story … so it’s very convenient for them (the students) to ‘seek shelter’ in the
stories of Noah and the creation of the world which are such universal stories… .
It’s also comfortable to be there because when they tell the story of Noah they
naturally won’t touch on the story of the destruction of the world but rather only
on the animals and living together…” As an example from the study she
conducted among kindergarten teachers in the State-Religious Education sys-
tem, Sigal tells how “all the teachers who participated had doubts as to whether
to tell the story of the Sacrifice of Isaac or not … what bothers them in the story
is not the moral dilemma. What concerns them in this story, all of them, is only
the emotional problem.”
Discussion
Apart from the differences between the two study populations in their
approaches to a range of subjects and in the languages used by the partici-

pants, there are clear similarities between the two colleges. This similarity is
expressed in each of the three themes presented in the study’s finding.
In the first two themes—the presentation of the difficulties involved in
teaching Bible and its objectives—the similarity can be observed via the
prism of the approaches to teaching Bible detailed in the literary review:
The participants’ perception of the students’ fear of confronting the Bible
story’s complexity, which constitutes one of the difficulties arising in the
findings, stems from a different reason at each college. At Olamot, the fear
mainly centers on the confrontation with the stories’ emotional complexity
and the preschool children’s ability to deal with this complexity. At Yuvalim,
on the other hand, the fear mainly focuses on the recognition that the
characters of the Bible are not perfect. The difference in the roots of the
fear is indicative of the two groups’ contrasting approaches to teaching Bible:
The point of origin of the majority of Olamot students is their perception of
the Bible via a cultural approach that places the emphasis on the Bible as a
source of transmitting national or moral and social values, on the tension
between the values of the Bible and those of modernism and liberalism, and
that stresses the personal dimension, thereby enabling the student to find in
the Bible an echo of his own personal feelings and values (Shkedi & Nisan,
2006). On the other hand, the point of departure for the students at Yuvalim is
the perception of the Bible with a normative-conceptual approach that views
the Bible as a sacred text immune from the projections of modern-day values
(Shkedi & Nisan, 2006). Despite the seemingly different points of origin, the
secular students’ perception according to which studying and teaching Bible
obligate a religious approach and their subsequent qualms of studying Bible for
this reason, are perhaps indicative of the duality of the Olamot students’
observation of the Bible and its teaching: Their declared fear stems, as stated,
from a cultural approach, but in their inability to relate to the Bible from
a secular viewpoint and their shrinking from the Bible as a religious domain,
they too are in practice adherents of the normative-conceptual approach.
The interesting finding is that despite the differing points of departure to

the students’ Bible teaching, the approaches of lecturers from both colleges
are cultural—various lecturers from Olamot and from Yuvalim emphasize
different aspects of this approach (see above). For example, the effort made
by the latter in the direction of thought development, asking questions, and
casting doubt places the weight both on moral, value-based education and on
the student and his search for meaning. For the lecturers from Yuvalim, this
cultural approach is in harmony with their religious philosophy that is based
on the perception of the Bible as a sacred source on the one hand, and on
free choice of opinions and values on the other (Alexander, 2001).3 They are
aware of the dissimilarity between themselves and the students in the
approaches to studying and to Bible, and therefore make use of a variety of
strategies (such as the use of the traditional commentary, the “constructive
doubt” and the “place of respect for the question” and “didactic truth”). They
do so in order to help the students undergo a process of change in their
approach to the Bible and to achieve their objective: Bible study from a
cultural approach. These strategies are expressed both in the manner in
which they teach the students Bible itself and in the teaching of the didactic
aspects.
The cultural approach also motivates the lecturers at the two colleges with
regard to the third theme. This can be illustrated by means of relating to the
issue of actualization: While some of the lecturers from Olamot tend to avoid
actualization, all the lecturers from Yuvalim view present-day links as a
positive objective, even if they don’t initiate such a connection in practice.
It can be suggested that at Olamot the political variety of the students is
greater and that, from the lecturers’ point of view, it is possible that the
present-day connection may tilt the content of the lesson to complex places
and create tension between groups of students within the class (that even
without employing actualization, encounter difficulty from the very encoun-
ter with Bible study using an approach that is not narratively ideal). By contrast,
even though the lecturers from Yuvalim identify the fact that actualization
invites tension in Bibles classes, they view it as an opportunity to strengthen
the humanist aspects within the population whose political approach is relatively
uniform, and whose approach to the Bible is narratively ideal.
In the relation to the question of the identity of the “other” too, all the
lecturers adhere to the cultural approach to the teaching of Bible and search
for the link between the biblical “other” and the “other” that exists in the
students’ own world, and later, in that of the children. The lecturers make a
distinction between the internal and external “other” although the distinction
differs between the two colleges: Lecturers from Yuvalim perceive the
Alongside a normative perception of the realm of halakha. One of the participants expresses the tension between
3
the two fields: “Obviously in the end if God commands something, it’s the right thing to do, but we have to ask
how we bridge this moral gap of having to kill women and children.”
internal “other” as Jewish (secular, for example) as opposed to the external

“other” who is not Jewish. Lecturers from Olamot perceive the internal
“other” as being present in the world of the kindergarten children (children
from different origins) as opposed to the external “other” who is not present
in their world (political “other”). The lecturers from both colleges describe
their attempts to raise the issue of the “other” for discussion and according to
Rosenberg (2005), view the presentation of the “other’s” point of view as a
means to confront moral dilemmas. In the manner in which they bring the
issue of the biblical “other” before the students, they use each of the ways of
coping proposed by Holtz (2003) for moral difficulties in the text, and invite
a moral discussion (Alexander, 2005).
With regard to the didactic aspects of teaching Bible in kindergarten, we
can find expression of the tendency of all the lecturers to find a balance
between the aspiration for exposure to complexity accompanied by an open
discussion and asking of questions, and the aspiration to suit the teaching of
the Bible to the emotional and moral aspects of developmental abilities of
young children. This tendency is common to all the participants and striking
among the lecturers teaching didactics of teaching Bible. The humanist
approach, that constitutes a central element in the cultural approach in
Bible teaching, is also reflected in their attitudes toward preschool education.
An examination of the declared objectives of the two colleges in light of
the study’s findings indicates various discrepancies: The declared objectives
of Bible teaching of Olamot College and the lecturers’ attitudes are identical.
The discrepancy is in the lecturers’ ability to implement these objectives in
light of the students’ characteristics and the difficulties in teaching Bible as
described in this article. At Yuvalim College a discrepancy can be found
between the prominent normative-conceptual approach on the part of the
college in teaching Bible and the lecturers’ objective as detailed in the study.
The cultural aspect appears in the Bible studies curriculum of the State-Religious
kindergarten alongside the normative-conceptual aspect, as opposed to its
centrality in the lecturers’ perception.
Summary
This study examined the attitudes of Bible lecturers at Early Education faculties in
two colleges, vis-à-vis the unique issue of the relation toward the “other” in the
Bible. This issue is connected to a range of topical subjects relevant across all
sectors of Israeli society. The study’s findings showed, in different ways, the
disinterest in moral issues arising from the Bible stories of the majority of the
students at both colleges. In addition, the study showed the repeated attempts of
the Bible lecturers at both colleges to interest and reconnect the students with
these issues, and the intellectual and practical efforts they undertake to this end. It
seems to us that this central issue has ramifications both on research and
implemental levels. Alongside the in-depth study that this issue invites, the
practical attention of policy-makers in the field of training teachers’ educators
and kindergarten teachers in particular, is also needed. In light of the kindergarten
teachers’ centrality in the molding of the children’s moral perceptions, there is
scope for encouraging time and resources to the field of moral education during
their training. The Bible courses in the early education faculties possess the
potential to constitute a platform for dealing with these issues. The findings
regarding the question of the relevance and actualization in teaching the issue of
the biblical “other” indicate significant uncertainties in this regard and there
would seem to be scope for their clarification beyond the framework of this study.
The study showed that beyond the differences between the colleges, the
reality described in this article traverses the different sectors to which the
colleges and their teaching and student populations belong. It can be proposed
therefore, that apart from the necessary discussion at each college, in-depth
processes in these fields be undertaken including joint groups of interest that
integrate a cross-section of populations from the different colleges. This idea in
of itself has the potential to enable the familiarization of the lecturers from
each of the colleges with the “other” from the other college, thereby enriching
the general view of the other. The central findings, indicating that the huma-
nistic approach guides the lecturers at both colleges, are of importance when
set against the background of the nature of Jewish society in Israel that is
largely perceived as divided and polarized.
Even though this study encompassed only the two colleges, the findings
presented might testify on other varied colleges that have similar orienta-
tions. Furthermore we suggest looking at the meaningful similarity that was
exposed between the two kinds of colleges, as a mirror to larger populations
in the Israeli society: The dichotomist distinction between religious and
secular no longer reflects these populations' larger and more complex picture.
Acknowledgments
The study on which this article is based was conducted within the framework of a “solidarity
group” led by Professor Neima Barzel at the Olamot Academic College, and benefitted from
financial assistance granted by the college.
References
Achituv, S. (2012). On the identity of religious kindergarten teachers in Israel (Doctoral
dissertation). University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.
Adar, Z. (1953). The educational values of the Bible. Tel Aviv, Israel: Neuman.
Alexander, H. A. (2001). Reclaiming goodness—Education and the spiritual quest. Notre
Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Alexander, H. A. (2005). Education in ideology. Journal of Moral Education, 34(1), 1–18.
doi:10.1080/03057240500049216
Alexander, H. A. (2009). Educating identity: Toward a pedagogy of difference. In S. Miedema

(Ed.), Religious education as encounter: A tribute to John M. Hull (pp. 45–52). Munster,
Germany: Waxman.
Azar, H. (2014). A joint study—Essence, procedure and research model. In H. Azar (Ed.),
Through the lens of the professional identity. Tel Aviv, Israel: The Mofet Institute.
Bible Curriculum for State Kindergartens. (2003). Jerusalem: The Ministry of Education,
Pedagogical Administration. (Hebrew).
Carmon, A. (2007). Agreement, difference, otherness. In A. Ravitzky & Y. Z. Stern (Eds.),
Devarim V’Shivrei Devarim [On the Judaism of a democratic country] (pp. 471–494).
Jerusalem, Israel: The Israel Democracy Institute.
Clandinin, D. J. (1985). Personal practical knowledge: A study of teachers’ classroom images.
Curriculum Inquiry, 15(4), 361–385. doi:10.1080/03626784.1985.11075976
Cohen, G. H. (1997). Moral judgment of Biblical characters? An evaluation of the
character of Sarah. In M. Ahrend & S. Feuerstein (Eds.), Ways in the Bible and its
teaching (pp. 199–213). Ramat Gan, Israel: Bar-Ilan University.

Elbaz, F. (1981). The teacher’s practical knowledge: Report of a case study. Curriculum
Inquiry, 11(1), 43–71.
Elbaz-Luwisch, F. (2005). Teachers’ voices, storytelling & possibility. Greenwich, CT:
Information Age Publishing.
Elitzur, A. (2001). But we are guilty for our brothers’–The other in the book of Genesis. In
H. Deutsch & M. Ben-Sasson (Eds.), The other: Between man, himself and his fellow
(pp. 307–341). Tel Aviv, Israel: The Center for Educational Technology.
From the Beginning: Genesis Stories for Pre-Schoolers in State Religious Education – A Guide
for Kindergarten Teachers. (2001). Jerusalem: The Ministry of Education, Pedagogical
Administration. (Hebrew).
Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of teaching: Teacher knowledge and teacher education.
New York, NY: Teacher College Press.
Gudmundsdottir, S. (1990). Values in pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Teacher
Education, 41, 44–52. doi:10.1177/002248719004100306
Hed Ha-Gan. (2005). Hanchalat Sipurei Mikra Leyaldei Ha-Gan [Special edition]. In M.
Snapir (Ed.), Hed HaGan, 70(1).
Holtz, B. W. (2003). Textual knowledge: Teaching the Bible in theory and in practice.
New York, NY: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America.
Ilan, M. (2011). Bible in kindergarten. Retrieved from https://www.google.co.il/url?sa=t&rct=
j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0 ahUKEwiZpqeJh_
3KAhVMApoKHfYfDVMQFggaMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmikrarevivim.blogspot.com
%2F2011%2F09%2Fblog-post_7503.html&usg=AFQjCNEWMmzY3Q5LqdaARU_
Ykurfe5JW5g
Kamm, M. (2001). The external and internal other—The story of and Esau: From the Bible
until the modern age. In H. Deutsch & M. Ben-Sasson (Eds.), The other: Between man,
himself and his fellow (pp. 342–366). Tel Aviv, Israel: The Center for Educational
Technology.
Koboby, D. (1992). Sifru-therapia. Jerusalem, Israel: Magnes.
Kozminsky, L. (2009). A joint study: Characteristics, advantages and challenges. The Paths of
Research, 16, 13–22.
Levy, N. (2005). What is your story? Hed HaGan, 70(1), 42–55. (Hebrew).
Madrich LaGanenet Megillat Esther. (1982). Ministry of Education–Pedagogical
Administration (Hebrew).
Madrich LaGanenet Yetziat Mitzrayim U-Matan Torah. (1982). Ministry of Education–
Pedagogical Administration (Hebrew).
Madrich LaGanenet Sipurei Ha'avot V'Sipurei Yosef. (1992). Ministry of Education–

Pedagogical Administration (Hebrew).
Madrich LaGanenet Mamshichim BeShemot. (2013). Ministry of Education–Pedagogical
Madrich LaGanenet Matchilim M'Breishit. (2002). Ministry of Education–Pedagogical
Noddings, N. (1986). Fidelity in teaching, teacher education and research for teaching.
Harvard Educational Review, 56(4), 496–511. doi:10.17763/haer.56.4.34738r7783h58050
Rosenberg, J. M. (2005). From ‘Bible stories’ to teaching Torah. On the Bible and Its Teaching, 8,
11–29.
Russell, T. (2002). Can self-study improve teacher education? In J. Loughran & T. Russell
(Eds.), Improving teacher education practices through self-study (pp. 3–9). London, UK:
Routledge.
Sagi, A. (1994). The punishment of Amalek in Jewish tradition: Coping with the moral
problem. Harvard Theological Review, 87(3), 323–346. doi:10.1017/S0017816000030753

Shkedi, A. (2003). Words trying to touch: Qualitative research—Theory and practice. Tel Aviv,
Israel: University of Tel Aviv Press.
Shkedi, A., & Horenczyk, G. (1995). The role of teacher ideology in the teaching of culturally
valued texts. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(2), 107–117. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(94)
00015-X
Shkedi, A., & Nisan, M. (2006). Teachers’ cultural ideology: Patterns of curriculum and
teaching culturally valued texts. Teachers College Record, 108(4), 687–725. doi:10.1111/
tcre.2006.108.issue-4
Shkedi, A., & Nissan, M. (2009). The influence of teachers’ personal ideology on Bible
teaching methods. Theory and Practice in Planning Studies, 20, 53–77.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57, 1–23. doi:10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and
techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

How To Bridge The Gap? Teacher Educators' Approaches To The Teaching of The Biblical "Other" in Kindergarten

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

How To Bridge The Gap? Teacher Educators' Approaches To The Teaching of The Biblical "Other" in Kindergarten

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Journal of Jewish Education

ISSN: 1524-4113 (Print) 1554-611X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujje20

How to Bridge the Gap? Teacher Educators’

Sigal Achituv & Shulamit Manzura

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15244113.2016.1199255

Published online: 05 Aug 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Download by: [University of Pennsylvania] Date: 07 August 2016, At: 05:56

How to Bridge the Gap? Teacher Educators’ Approaches to

two researchers themselves part of the study population, was

(1) The student population: At Yuvalim the population is predominantly

college with a close affiliation to the kibbutz movement, possesses a

Teaching Bible in kindergarten in Israel

Teachers’ educational approaches

in the teachers’ consciousness to an ideal all-inclusive view, despite the fact

Approaches to teaching Bible

The attitude to the “Other” in the Bible

Holtz (2003) presents five manners of dealing with ethical difficulties in

Bible studies in colleges of education and in the kindergarten curricula

The Bible studies faculty at Olamot College presents a national-cultural

Another main objective of the faculty is the instillment of learning skills—

“other” to contemporary social, moral, and educational issues on the

The course of the study

Viewpoint of the researchers conducting this study

partnership based on equality, mutual support, and joint initiative. We used an

The lecturers’ perceptions of the difficulties in teaching Bible at the college

Difficulties presented by the lecturers at Olamot

experience and are exposed to kindergarten teachers’ and parents’ anxieties

A difficulty presented by the Yuvalim lecturers

The lecturers’ perception of their objectives in teaching Bible to students

“Rehabilitation” of the Bible study experience

Encouragement of different of opinions and interpretations

Development of awareness and tools for developmentally appropriate

Lecturers’ perception of the “Other” in teaching Bible

Who is the “Other”?

homosexuals—and a normative “other.” Each family contains a normative

The level of students’ interest in the “Biblical Other”

ramifications on the atmosphere in class which evokes a myriad of mean-

different. How do we do it today? I also talk to them intuitively about the

(the specialness of Israel) as expounded in his book The Kuzari, according to

I mean, the Bible doesn’t always teach us the optimal example.”

The question of preschool didactics of the issue of the “Other”

approaches to a range of subjects and in the languages used by the partici-

The interesting finding is that despite the differing points of departure to

internal “other” as Jewish (secular, for example) as opposed to the external

Alexander, H. A. (2009). Educating identity: Toward a pedagogy of difference. In S. Miedema

teaching (pp. 199–213). Ramat Gan, Israel: Bar-Ilan University.

Madrich LaGanenet Sipurei Ha'avot V'Sipurei Yosef. (1992). Ministry of Education–

problem. Harvard Theological Review, 87(3), 323–346. doi:10.1017/S0017816000030753

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen