Should the Bible Still Be Taught in Israeli Secular State Education?
Tzachi Rolnik, educator and teacher
In recent years, the subject of Bible studies has been fighting for its place in the Israeli education system: instructional hours are being reduced, the secular public is distancing itself, and political discourse is appropriating the Scriptures. In this article, educator and teacher Tzachi Rolnik reviews the evolution of Bible instruction from the Mishnaic era to the present day, analyzes the pedagogical and social challenges, and offers a fresh perspective: how to return the "Book of Books" to the center of identity, culture, and curiosity for the 21st-century Israeli student.
Tags: Bible instruction in secular state education; Status of the Bible in Israeli society; Israeli identity and the Bible; Pedagogy; Politicization of the Bible.
Do We Still Need to Teach Bible in State Secular Schools?
Do We Still Need to Teach Bible?
"To tell the truth, few people know the Bible, few meditate on it day and night.
We do not know how to quote from it, and when we do, we tear it entirely from its true context within the text.
Why did this happen?
Is it because Modern Hebrew has drifted so far from Biblical language?
Or perhaps because people don't read at all anymore—so they don't read the Bible either—television, maybe?
Or perhaps because we have lost this book as our deed of title to the Land of Israel, as our kushan (land deed)?
We seek to investigate the reason.
Is the Bible still among the roots of our identity?"
A Short Introduction
It is difficult for me to say that Bible studies in school left an indelible mark on me. In the same breath, I must note that my teachers—even if they did not do a great job inspiring a "love" for the book—still instilled in me many of the stories, idioms, and biblical language, and these have remained within me.
The Bible, once the crown jewel of state education, is currently fighting for its life. Its status has devalued, dedicated instructional hours have shrunk, students show little interest, and university Bible departments are emptying out. At times, it seems that between the trendy interest in Kabbalah and the Jewish bookshelf, and politicians' worn-out clichés about "the rock of our origin" and "the bedrock of our existence," the Bible is truly being forgotten. In light of this, the obvious question is whether we should fight for its place among school subjects, or whether 21st-century Israel can dispense with it as a distinct subject of study.
I will now briefly review the approaches to Bible study from the Mishnaic and Talmudic periods up to the present day, with an emphasis on the era of Political Zionism. Afterward, I will attempt to show that the question of the Bible's place in state education is influenced by three main factors: inherent difficulties at the core of teaching the Bible as an independent domain of knowledge, prevailing methods of teaching the Bible in secular state schools, and the status of the Bible in Israeli society.
In a manner that almost compels one to start believing in fate, a documentary series hosted by Yaron London aired on Cable Channel 8, dealing with foundational Israeli myths—including an episode focusing on the Bible's place as a foundational myth. Beyond the political statement inherent in calling the Bible a "myth," London and his interviewees touch upon (almost) all the points on which the Bible is attacked today. Excerpts from this thought-provoking program are transcribed throughout this article, alongside my own modest opinions and insights.
So How Was the Bible Studied in the Past?
Somewhere in the 2nd century CE, the biblical canon was finalized, and from that point on, the Bible shifted from a book being written to a book being studied. Attitudes toward it over the generations continuously shifted and reshaped.
1. The Traditional Approach — From the Tannaitic Period to the Enlightenment
According to the Tanna Judah ben Teima: "At five years old one is ready for the study of Scripture, at ten for the Mishnah, at thirteen for the commandments, at fifteen for the Talmud..." (Mishnah, Pirkei Avot 5:21). In the Rabbinic period, Bible study was the beginning and foundation of learning. Focusing on the Torah was essential, as the Bible served as the legal foundation for the Mishnah and Talmud. For the Tannaim and Amoraim, the Bible was the living word of God. For a long time, they refrained from writing down their legal rulings out of fear that the public would fail to distinguish between the holy Scriptures and their own rulings—which indeed eventually occurred.
Up until the Enlightenment (Haskalah), the Cheder (the traditional elementary school) gradually took shape as the precursor to today's school. For young children, Bible study (primarily the Torah) served as the foundation for learning to read and becoming familiar with liturgical language. For older children, Bible study occurred through the study of the Mishnah and Talmud, manifesting mainly as fragmented, isolated verses quoted within Tannaitic and Amoraic debates. To this day in Ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) education, the Bible continues to be taught in this manner, holding a much lower status than the Mishnah and Talmud.
2. The Enlightenment Period (Haskalah) — A Bridge Between the Traditional Torah World and Modern European Culture
The first major shift in the Bible's status began in the 18th century with the Enlightenment movement, which emerged against the backdrop of European emancipation. Among its core values, the movement championed religious freedom for Jews and civil rights in their places of residence. The Bible—which was also an essential element of the Christian world and European values—became a bridge connecting Judaism to the surrounding modern world for enlightened Jewry. For the Jewish Enlightenment movement, whose prominent representative was Naphtali Hirsch Wessely, the Bible was the foundation for human moral education. The Bible was translated into German and studied as a baseline for universal moral values and humanism. Although emancipation ultimately disappointed, the emphasis on Bible study became a crucial foundation for the Reform and Neo-Orthodox movements that followed.
3. National Awakening — The "Reformed Cheder" (Cheder Metukan) or "Dangerous Cheder" (Cheder Mesukan)
Immediately following the "Springtime of the Nations" in the mid-19th century and the rise of nationalism that followed, the status and teaching methods of the Bible assumed a new form. Initially, with thinkers like Peretz Smolenskin and Ahad Ha'am, Jewish nationalism was understood to rest on national language, national literature, and the unique moral spirit of the Jewish people. Similar to Enlightenment thinkers, they highlighted the general human and moral values of the Bible, viewing prophetic morality as the spirit that shaped the Jewish nation. National Judaism was initially conceived as a spiritual nation built around these elements rather than territory. This mindset gave rise to the Cheder Metukan ("Reformed Cheder"), which educated toward these biblical values. The language of instruction shifted from Yiddish to Hebrew. The magnitude of this shift is reflected in the nickname given to it by Orthodoxy—the Cheder Mesukan ("Dangerous Cheder," playing on the similar pronunciation in Ashkenazi Hebrew).
The national approach that began in the Cheder Metukan found its continuation in Political Zionism, which granted Bible study its privileged and unique standing.
4. From the Return to the Land to the Established State — Additional Approaches
The greatest transformation in the Bible's status in the Jewish world began with Political Zionism and the return to the Land of Israel. The Bible became the most significant anchor of identity for the nation renewing itself in its homeland and became one of the most vital subjects in the Israeli school system. Below are the primary pedagogical approaches of that era:
- The National Approach: Zionism was viewed as the "Return to Zion" and the revival of the Bible as an integral part of the rebirth of the nation, its land, and its language. Bible instruction in schools aimed to instill in students a love for the homeland and its landscapes, mastery of the Hebrew language, and the understanding that the Bible is the source of national history and the moral foundations of both the Jewish people and humanity as a whole.
- The Social Approach: Characteristic of the educational architects of the Labor Movement, prominently represented by Moshe Sister. This approach placed humanity at the center, emphasizing the social-historical aspect while setting aside the religious aspects of Scripture.
- The Theocentric Approach: A prominent spokesperson was S.D. Goitein. His approach was characterized by placing God at the center and highlighting the complexity of monotheistic faith.
- The Humanistic Approach: A prominent spokesperson was Zvi Adar, a teacher and educator. The emphasis was on values-based education. The learner must examine the experiences and values of biblical figures and evaluate to what extent they serve as worthy models to adopt. Biblical values themselves could be subject to critique.
- The Eclectic Approach: Starting in the 1970s, the need to frame Bible studies through a single dominant ideological lens began to fade. There emerged a prominent desire to understand the text within the context of its time and place, embracing its multiplicity of views. Attention was given to Ancient Near Eastern literature, biblical criticism, and the moral evaluation of biblical characters.
Religious State Education (Mamlachti-Dati)
Within Religious State Education, there exists an approach that expresses reservations about Bible studies out of concern that students will connect literal textual analysis (Pshat) with secularism, or that biblical criticism will compromise the sanctity of the text. Alongside this, there is an opposing approach known as "Bible at Eye Level" (influenced by the teachings of Rabbi Kook and his disciples). This view holds that the Bible should actively shape the spiritual persona of every believer, particularly when the Jewish people reside in the land where the Bible was created. Consequently, the Bible should be experienced firsthand through field trips across the land, studying the literal text, and integrating historical and archaeological reality.
What Do We Have Left from the Book in School? — Inherent Difficulties in Teaching the Bible
Teaching the Bible involves many objective difficulties unique to the subject.
"What do you have left from the book?'Honor your father and mother'... not much. One story? I don't remember.It's a storybook like the Brothers Grimm, like Andersen—that's what remains."(At a Torah scroll presentation for elementary school children)— Yaron London, The Chosen People: Land of the Bible
Biblical Language
The primary role of a Bible teacher is to bridge the gap in understanding biblical language. The difficulty in comprehending the language led to a problematic solution in the form of "Ram Bible" (Tanakh Ram), which translates biblical Hebrew into modern everyday Hebrew. Yet this very attempt to make the text accessible highlights just how much a student loses when they do not engage with the original text directly. Entire layers of the written word are lost in translation—layers that are easily uncovered alongside a teacher.
Addressing this issue, Lea Mazor wrote in an article dedicated to the Ram Bible:
"Biblical language is not an obstacle to understanding the Bible; it is the key to understanding the Bible. Language reflects the categories through which its speakers perceive reality, and if one wishes to dive into the world of the Bible, one must know its language well. What is urgently needed today is not a translation of the Bible into modern Hebrew, but more hours dedicated to teaching Bible."
I will touch upon the problem of instructional hours shortly.
In my view, the language barrier is the most severe. The majority of the curriculum in elementary school should be dedicated to mastering the skill of reading the text itself and building a basic literary familiarity with its stories. Within this framework, students should be given repeated opportunities to practice independent reading and textual comprehension. Such a focus would allow students to reach middle and high school far better prepared to engage with biblical language and delve deeper into the text.
Sanctity and Faith
Even in "general" (secular) education, many traditional and observant individuals believe in the sanctity of the Bible. A teacher who presents material that conflicts with this sanctity requires immense diplomacy and care, as Bible study is emotionally charged. This difficulty should not be dismissed; however, through a fairer, gentler approach, a teacher can present the diversity of views regarding the composition of the Bible while respecting all perspectives and those who hold them. Such an approach neutralizes the sting of the problem.
Broad Interdisciplinary Knowledge
Few fields today require a teacher to possess such broad interdisciplinary knowledge as the Bible. To teach the biblical text comprehensively, one must study—beyond traditional or modern commentaries—topics from history, literature, sociology, archaeology, philosophy, and more.
This is a challenge that a skilled teacher can leverage to their advantage. A good educator should dive into all these facets, carefully selecting what to bring to the classroom. Interdisciplinary scope is a blessing rather than a burden, as it renders the study of the book eclectic and multidimensional, making it possible to captivate students from various angles and perspectives.
Irrelevance
Another challenge relates to our modern world, which often measures the worth of subjects based on their immediate relevance to our daily lives. Most school subjects today touch on contemporary matters and aim to provide students with tools to understand today's world. Ostensibly, the Bible is ancient, and large portions of it appear to be relics completely detached from modern life. Major sections contain ideas and customs alien to students today, striking them as strange or archaic.
However, this is merely a superficial appearance. Biblical stories, laws, poetry, and wisdom can be connected to virtually any domain of modern life—it simply requires a modest effort. In every area we examine—human behavior, the rule of law, power and its usage, philosophical questions of existence—the Bible remains fully relevant.
Reduction in Instructional Hours
In the early days of the pre-state Yishuv, some schools taught up to 8 hours of Bible per week. At the founding of the State (1953), 5 weekly hours were still taught. Today, only two weekly hours are allocated, and the required material has been reduced from 200 chapters to around 70. There is simply no way to maintain the special status of the Book if the system treats it with dismissiveness and a lack of importance.
What Remains from School? — Criticism of Teaching Methods in Secular State Schools
In recent years, harsh criticism has been leveled against the way the Bible is taught in schools and the overarching curricula guiding it. Much of the contemporary critique comes from the press, including literary figures such as Menachem Ben, Doron Rosenblum/Koren, Yochi Brandes, and many others who argue that Bible instruction has been stripped of its soul. Despite the heated rhetoric this debate often assumes, their arguments contain significant seeds of truth.
Yaron London: "In schools, they struggle greatly with teaching the Book of the Bible."Yochi Brandes: "Do you think it's because of God?"Yaron London: "I'm looking for the reason."Yochi Brandes: "I have scathing criticism for Bible studies in the state education system. It turns the Bible into something technical and boring. You say, 'Because I don't believe, I don't know how to relate to the Bible,' and the education system takes it one step further and says, 'Chiastic parallelism, who said to whom, comparison of manuscripts'—is that how you teach Bible? A dry, soul-crushing technique. That is the reason people hate the Bible—not God. God is a very attractive and interesting topic; let's discuss Him!"— Yaron London, The Chosen People: Land of the Bible
Unnecessary Academization (or Pseudo-Academization)
"No more scientific terms, no more professor articles, no more comparisons to Gilgamesh and Hammurabi." — Menachem Ben
Most critics point first and foremost to an unnecessary academization (or pseudo-academization) of instruction, which fills learning materials with dry terminology drawn from university Bible and literature departments. Concepts like chiastic structure, comparative ancient Near Eastern literature, and casuistic vs. apodictic law serve as prime examples of how academization leaves students feeling disconnected and bored.
While I agree that a single scholarly angle should not become the essence of all instruction, the research perspective does have a place. If tied meaningfully to the text itself, it can enrich the student's learning experience. However, care must be taken not to overemphasize scholarly apparatus at the expense of engaging directly with the text.
Lack of Basic Familiarity with the Stories Themselves
"Speak to the youth 'at eye level,' knock on the doors that open to their mind and heart, interest them. Do not act superior and do not exhaust them," writes Doron Koren in one of his articles. "Only then will they truly internalize their learning."
This point is fundamental and ties directly into understanding the language. Even in higher grades, instruction must begin with a basic reading and comprehension of the text. The teacher's role is to ignite student interest in biblical language and restore some of its richness to them, insisting on key idioms and famous expressions.
Furthermore, during higher-level discussions regarding the ideas within the stories, students should be given ample room for self-expression—expression fosters engagement and interest. Students generally like the sound of their own voices, but that does not mean they lack interesting things to say.
To this critique, I would add one of my own: connecting the Bible to the world around us and our students. Instruction should be linked to technology, music, social media, and the broader communication styles of youth culture today. Their contemporary world and modes of communication are entirely different from ours; we must adapt to their environment rather than force them into our old paradigms.
In addition to connecting to this screen-focused modern reality, we must also return the Bible to dusty trails, native landscapes, trees, and wildflowers through field trips as a form of experiential learning—perhaps through an "Interactive Hiking Bible Track" offered as an enrichment program.
Shortage of Bible Teachers and University Students
There is a marked decline in both the quantity and enrollment quality of students in university Bible departments and teacher training colleges. This depletion inevitably impacts the profession, those who teach it, and its overall standing.
Frequent Changes in Curricula and Strategy
Every few years, the curriculum is replaced by a new one, each carrying its own agenda and logic. This constant turnover creates significant instructional instability.
Have We Already Given Up on the Bible? Is It Still the "Book of Books" or Just Another Book?
"In our schools, the Bible is viewed not as the magnificent foundation of our national culture, but in many cases as religious coercion, and in even more cases, as an unnecessary and overly difficult subject that needs to be simplified." — Yoram Bronowski, Haaretz (1997)"To whom does the Bible belong today in the Land of Israel? The answer is probably to very few people." — Doron Koren
Hovering over the question of teaching the Bible in schools is an even larger issue: the status of the Bible in contemporary Israeli societal life. Historian Anita Shapira points to 1967 as a key turning point when the status of the Bible began to plunge—though this landmark remains a subject of debate.
The Bible, which once enjoyed an unquestioned status as the central anchor of Israeli identity, now struggles for its presence in our daily lives. Today, it sits caught between the hammer of declining ideologies and the anvil of political agendas seeking to co-opt it for their own ends.
Several core factors contribute to the erosion of the Bible's status in Israel:
The Decline of the Ideological Era
Individualism, self-fulfillment at the expense of social cohesion, material achievement, loss of mutual responsibility, and a sense of Israeli detachment from foundational myths cause the Bible—like many other cultural markers—to lose its intrinsic value. In a world where money and consumerism dominate, remaining a vital cultural asset is difficult.
Perception of Irrelevance to Secular Life
For a non-believer, there appears to be no need to study a book centered on an ancient God and faith. The Bible’s stories, laws, and messages can feel distant from the modern world. To this claim, it is difficult to find a better response than the one offered by prominent Bible scholar Yair Zakovitch during Yaron London's program:
Yair Zakovitch: "You cannot understand poetry if you do not know Scripture; your language is impoverished if you do not know Scripture; you cannot understand art—classical European art—if you do not know Scripture. In short, you cannot be a cultured person if you do not know Scripture."— Yaron London, The Chosen People: Land of the Bible
The Holocaust Replacing the Bible in Israeli Identity
The Bible's position in Israeli identity has largely been supplanted by the Holocaust as a primary source of identification with the Jewish people, contemporary Jewish history, and lessons of martyrology. Anita Shapira suggests that in a society where a significant portion of the younger generation is native-born, there may no longer be a perceived need to validate one's connection to the land through "textual memory." Instead, the connection to contemporary World Jewry is what requires reinforcement.
Despite the logic of this argument, it seems more likely that the general abandonment of Scripture left a vacuum—a void subsequently filled by memory of the Holocaust.
The Perception That the Bible Belongs Only to the Religious
A prevailing assumption exists that religious Jews are the ones who understand Scripture, hold authority over it, or alternatively use it for messianic political ends unrelated to secular life. At a basic level, a primal belief persists among the secular public that religious individuals are the sole experts on religion and, by extension, the Bible.
At a deeper level, this argument leads directly into the political arena, where the Bible serves as a primary battlefield. According to a common thesis featured in Anita Shapira's book The Bible and Israeli Identity, the 1967 Six-Day War brought the Israeli public into contact with historic biblical lands in the West Bank, but also with the Palestinian population residing there. The realization of the Palestinian issue following 1967, combined with religious-Zionist settlement initiatives in these territories, led many secular Israelis to avoid forming a deep emotional attachment to the "Land of the Bible," thereby alienating them from the Bible itself.
Regarding this historical watershed, it is worth emphasizing that initially, the Labor movement and Religious Zionism connected around the traditional Zionist ethos of "another dunam, another goat." It was only after realizing the complex reality on the ground that the left-leaning camp consolidated around a functional Zionist vision, viewing Israel within the pre-1967 borders as the consensus homeland. The Bible—which featured Hebron, Nablus (Shechem), and Bethel—became associated with the opposing political camp, leading to its gradual distancing and near-ostracization.
This total surrender of the Bible (which represented a connection to those territories) highlighted anew the broader question of the Jewish people's claim to their land—a connection that, despite being anchored in Israel's Declaration of Independence, has seemed to weaken internationally ever since.
A clear example of this attitude appears in remarks made by politician Chaim Oron ("Jumes") during his retirement interview with Haaretz: "When I visited there [the Samarian hills] for the first time," Oron recalled, "I saw a hill. I wanted to see what was behind the hill, and it turned out there was just another hill, and another. No, I was not moved."
One cannot help but ponder how Oron would feel if someone said something similar about his home, Kibbutz Lahav in the Northern Negev: "Just an empty wilderness, just sand dunes." Interestingly, Oron's kibbutz was originally supposed to be named Ziklag, after the adjacent biblical city. There is symbolic irony in this fact, shedding light on the castigation of a rich cultural ethos simply because of its association with Religious Zionism. This dynamic is captured in a dialogue between Yaron London and Yair Zakovitch:
Yair Zakovitch: "When I began studying Bible years ago, it was not unusual, because Zionism and Scripture went hand in hand—returning to the Land of the Bible, returning to the language of the Bible, returning to the values of the Prophets, returning to working the soil. We genuinely felt a reconnection to biblical times.Today, something else is happening. National-religious groups connect to the Bible because it serves specific political goals, and this is a tragedy—because the moment they co-opted the Bible, secular Israelis retreated. 'If you want a monopoly on the Bible, take it, enjoy it, we surrender it.' My issue is not with the religious; my issue is with the secular who relinquish their heritage so easily..."Yaron London: "A young woman wearing a head covering and settler clothing walks on a hill in Samaria holding a Bible and tells us, 'Look, right here is Shiloh, and you want me to leave this?'"Yair Zakovitch: "I also feel deeply connected to the Land of the Bible, and I delight in exploring the land with a Bible in hand to see its landscapes—it expands my heart. Personally, I don't believe I need to rule over hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, and borders to me are not holy—human life is holier. Even in the Bible, borders were never static; there were promised borders, ideal borders, shifting borders, two kingdoms. One can manage within agreed-upon borders; peace is no less a biblical value than territorial inheritance. I hope that in messianic times we merit the entire Land of Israel, but right now, that is impossible."— Yaron London, The Chosen People: Land of the Bible
Zakovitch articulates a logical argument: even if one's political view advocates for territorial compromise in the West Bank, that does not require renouncing it as part of one's cultural heritage.
Simultaneously, it must be noted that elements of this discourse contain a degree of institutional condescension. Phrases like "National-religious groups connect to the Bible because it serves political goals..." or references to "settler uniforms" carry unmistakable cultural biases. Did Religious Zionism have no genuine interest in the Bible prior to 1967? Is an opposing viewpoint inherently a "tragedy"?
Beyond political debates, attributing the decline of the Bible entirely to "religious nationalist co-optation" or the 1967 war is somewhat artificial. Secular intellectual circles noted the Bible's waning influence years prior. Examining period literature, spoken language, classroom trends, and early post-Zionist ideologies reveals that the retreat from the Bible began well before 1967, driving earlier reductions in instructional hours and required texts.
Post-Zionist Ideologies
When dealing with a religious text as a marker of national identity, counter-movements inevitably emerge that define their identity precisely through rejecting the Bible as a metric for enlightenment. For many Israelis, opposing Religious Zionism, classical Zionism, or the Bible itself became an efficient identity marker.
These ideologies seek to challenge the legitimacy of a Zionist identity rooted in historical belonging to the Land of Israel. They frequently draw on biblical criticism that questions the historical accuracy of Scripture (such as archaeological debates versus textual accounts), framing the Bible as a late-invented myth designed to retroactively justify land claims. Others minimize its value relative to later Rabbinic literature, which they present as containing more universal values.
"Let them study Mishnah and Shulchan Aruch as much as they want, and we will study Biblical Criticism... In the long run, the effort to develop a Jewish worldview without the Master of the Universe is more important than any other endeavor."— Haaretz (1997)
Ruth Calderon: "I believe ignorance is weakness, and Zionist education was built on organized ignorance. I refuse not to know. But one cannot live solely by the Bible today. Today, settlers, Karaites, and Samaritans live by the literal Bible. To build a modern society, you cannot live by 'an eye for an eye,' nor can you force a rape victim to marry her attacker... Through Rabbinic texts (Chazal), I can oppose dangerous approaches to building a life here."— Yaron London, The Chosen People: Land of the Bible
This logical progression is framed clearly:
- Ignorance = Weakness
- Zionist Education = Based on Biblical Reliance = Ignorance
- Literal Biblical Life = Primitive / Archaic ('Eye for an Eye')
- Rabbinic Texts (Chazal) = Universal, Sustainable Frameworks
Yet is this logic entirely sound? Do Talmudic texts not also contain archaic passages alongside progressive ones? Is Rabbinic literature entirely free of controversy? Ironically, this stance creates a symbolic alignment with Ultra-Orthodoxy, for whom the Talmud likewise functions as the primary source for structuring daily life.
Yaron London: "Now I will share my heart. I think the Bible is my most beloved book. Not every single part... but everything connected to the nature of this land, its landscapes—that is what I grew up on. In my secular schooling, my teachers walked with a Bible in hand. I must admit that when I stand on a mountain in Samaria and think that we might have to part from it and present a passport to come here, my heart aches."— Yaron London, The Chosen People: Land of the Bible
Why the Bible Must Be Taught as a Distinct Subject and Return to the Core Curriculum
I will now present my personal perspective regarding the status of the Bible, the rationale for preserving it in the curriculum, and concrete steps to achieve this.
Even among the most vocal critics, a common thread emerges: the Bible remains important and must continue to be transmitted to future generations. Even if instruction lacks widespread enthusiasm, the text must be preserved as a fundamental cultural asset of the Jewish people.
Why Teach the Bible?
As an adult, I found myself strongly drawn back to the Book of Books. My connection to Zionism is bound up with this text; the Bible sits at the foundation of the art, language, and culture I cherish.
Every profound philosophical question and great narrative is already contained within it. Its archaic language holds enduring power; its landscapes and geography resonate directly with our surroundings. Whether King David was a historical figure exactly as described, or whether specific texts were compiled during the Persian or Hellenistic periods, are important scholarly questions—yet what matters most is that the Bible represents a monumental literary work created under the sun of this land by our ancestors. These elements should make it an anchor of identity and a source of pride.
Teaching the Bible as a distinct subject is essential because its study extends beyond mere academic information acquisition. Studying the Bible integrates several vital dimensions:
- Cultural Foundation: Instruction in higher grades (and appropriately adapted in lower grades) must emphasize that the Bible is the foundation of our culture. It is our shared mythology, our historical memory, the source of our revived language, and our ancient connection to this land. We must instill in students a sense of pride in their shared heritage, presenting the Bible as a positive, dynamic legacy rather than relying solely on the Holocaust as the single unifying pillar of secular Jewish identity.
- Humanistic and Universal Values: The Bible presents the full spectrum of human behavior—both noble and flawed. Rather than ignoring these contradictions, instruction should highlight them as fundamental to the human condition. The beauty of the Bible lies in its literary, ideological, and philosophical diversity; it resists reduction to a single dogma. It stands as an example of pluralism. Within this framework, educators should emphasize its universal values: treatment of the vulnerable, social justice, human ethics, and evolving concepts of the Divine.
- Empowerment and Equal Ownership: Every student—whether secular or religious—has equal ownership over the Bible. Teachers should empower students to engage critically and independently with the text. Educators must not shy away from challenging topics, such as archaeological findings or historical contextualization, but rather facilitate open discussions that represent diverse academic and traditional viewpoints.
- Building Social Cohesion: State education should emphasize elements that unite rather than divide. A key role for educators today is restoring a shared cultural baseline. The Bible serves as a powerful counterweight to extreme individualism and social fragmentation by emphasizing community responsibility and a shared narrative.
Attempting to completely delegitimize or dismiss the Bible undermines our historical connection to this land. We are not a collection of refugees who landed here by chance. Framing our story as entirely colonialist or lacking historical roots ultimately erodes national self-legitimacy, leaving us vulnerable to claims that dismiss our historical presence entirely.
ביבליוגרפיה
- י‘ אמית, (1995) האם ירדה קרנו של התנ"ך מתוך: זמנים, רבעון להיסטוריה, אוניברסיטת ת"א.
- י‘ אמית, (2010) עלייתה ונפילתה של אמפריית החינוך הישראלי, רכס פרוייקטים חינוכיים.
- י‘ ברנד, הוויכוח על הוראת התנ"ך בדורות האחרונים, מתוך: חמדעת, שנתון מכללת חמדת הדרום, גיליון 1
- ג’ וייץ, (2011), חיים אורון עוזב את הכנסת ועוצר לסכם ראיון, עיתון הארץ.
- ל“י לוין, ע‘ מזר (עורכים): (2000) הפולמוס על האמת ההיסטורית במקרא, הוצאת יד בן צבי.
- י‘ לונדון (2011), ארץ התנ"ך, בתוך העם הנבחר, סדרת תעודה של ערוץ 8.
- ב“צ מוסינזון, (1910), התנ"ך בבית הספר, בתוך: "החינוך – עיתון פדגוגי למורים והורים", הוצאת אגודת המורים בא"י .
- ל‘ מזור, “על תרגום התנ”ך לעברית בת ימינו”, בית מקרא נד,א (תשס”ט), עמ’ 166-126
- א‘ סרי-לוי, (2007) , מי הזיז את התנ"ך שלי
http://ariel.seri-levi.com/?p=55 - ד‘ קורן, (1999), איך איבדנו את התנ"ך ואיך נוכל לגלות אותו מחדש, בתוך יהדות חופשית כתב עת בנושא יהדות הומניסטית חילונית, גיליון 15.
- י‘ רוזנסון, (2005), זיוו ההולך ומועם - על מקרא וזהות, עיתון הצופה.
- א‘ שפירא, (2005), התנ"ך והזהות הישראלית, הוצאת מאגנס.
* This article is based on a lecture delivered at the "Kerem" Institute, guided by David Cohen-Tsemach, lecturer in Biblical Criticism.
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה
תודה רבה על תגובתך. היא תפורסם אחרי אישורה.