Reading in Two Voices of an Educational Experience of Interreligious Jewish-Christian Dialogue

Abstract

This article explores an interreligious educational initiative jointly developed by the Union of Italian Jewish Communities (UCEI) and the Italian Episcopal Conference (CEI), the “Sixteen Sheets on Judaism,” created to support Catholic religious education in Italian schools. Using a dialogical-hermeneutic methodology within a constructivist qualitative framework, the study applies Hermeneutic Content Analysis to thematically code and interpret the corpus. The analysis shows how the sheets seek to dismantle long-standing stereotypes and theological distortions about Judaism—often still present in educational settings—and to prevent forms of antisemitism by fostering accurate knowledge and mutual respect. Key themes include the Hebrew Scriptures, the Written and Oral Torah, and the Jewish identity of Jesus and Paul. The materials promote mutual recognition and religious literacy through dialogical engagement and the affirmation of Judaism as a living and autonomous tradition. By enabling Jewish self-representation and encouraging theological reciprocity, the sheets exemplify a model of transformative non-formal education. The article positions this case within broader debates on interreligious pedagogy and presents it as a valuable tool for inclusive curriculum design and intercultural citizenship.

1. Introduction

This contribution presents a good practice in educational governance—conceived, launched, and still in progress—which highlights the collaborative dimension between two institutions representative of distinct religious and cultural worlds: the Union of Italian Jewish Communities (UCEI) and the Italian Episcopal Conference (CEI). How can a majority religious tradition ensure that its own school-based teaching about other faiths is accurate, respectful, and free of stereotypes? In Italy—where Catholic Religious Education is part of the national curriculum—the CEI–UCEI partnership represents a significant answer to this question, producing the Sixteen Sheets on Judaism as a tool for enhancing Catholic education through interreligious collaboration. This initiative also reflects the unique context of the Italian peninsula, where Catholic and Jewish traditions have coexisted for more than two millennia, making dialogue and mutual understanding both a historical necessity and a cultural specificity. Despite their differences in organizational models and systems of representation—one structured around community-based elections, the other based on ecclesiastical hierarchy—the two institutions have managed to initiate a shared process. Starting from mutual recognition, they have developed a structured dialogue aimed at understanding shared issues, albeit from different perspectives.

The selection of this thematic corpus is particularly relevant, as it allows for a focus on different forms of governance—namely institutional, methodological, and transformative—which will be explored throughout this paper. The project has fostered a hermeneutic reading of the materials, enabling a dialogical approach as well as personal and transformative engagement, in line with the educational aims of the initiative.

The first concrete outcome of this process is the joint drafting of sixteen teaching units, initially addressed to school textbook publishers, but also intended for direct educational use, as recently emphasized by the Italian Ministry of Education and Merit. These units aim to offer an accurate and respectful representation of Judaism through cross-disciplinary and content-rich materials that can be integrated into various areas of school publishing.

The CEI–UCEI teaching units are the outcome of a cooperative governance process which, despite involving historically distinct actors, has succeeded in recognizing education and interreligious dialogue as a fertile space for shared commitment and co-responsibility. On the Catholic side, the project involved the General Secretariat of the CEI, the National Office for Ecumenism and Interreligious Dialogue, the National Office for Education, School and University, and the National Service for Catholic Religious Education.

A particularly significant and innovative aspect of this experience lies in the adoption of a collaborative model based on principles of cultural decentralization, epistemological reciprocity, and the educational value of engaging with different religious and cultural identities. This approach goes beyond simply correcting stereotypes and distortions in school content; it aims to establish a new educational paradigm—one rooted in shared knowledge, respect for pluralism, and a commitment to civil and peaceful coexistence (Wofsi Rocca and Novello Paglianti 1990).

The commitment and dedication invested in the development of the teaching units—resulting from over two years of work—reflect a shared awareness of the presence of distortions and stereotypes concerning Judaism in textbooks used for Catholic religious education (and in those of other subjects as well). These representations generate challenges on multiple levels: on one hand, for Jewish communities, which often lack the opportunity to directly intervene in the school setting to correct inaccurate information; on the other, for the Catholic world, which perceives the inadequacy of current didactic tools and their inconsistency with the decades-long journey of Jewish-Christian dialogue initiated in Italy since the 1950s—particularly with the meeting in Florence between Giorgio La Pira and Jules Isaac—and further consolidated, from the 1980s onward, through a variety of local initiatives (Mazzini 2013).

The Jewish-Christian associations born out of this process of encounter and dialogue are grounded in shared principles of mutual understanding, attentive listening, and respect. Their work is oriented toward deconstructing prejudices, combating all forms—both explicit and implicit—of antisemitism, and promoting ethical and moral values common to both religious traditions. Within this framework of shared commitment, the project idea for the CEI–UCEI teaching units took shape in June 2019 at the Monastery of Camaldoli. During one of the annual seminars on Jewish-Christian dialogue and a teacher training workshop, the proposal emerged to develop educational tools capable of providing a correct, accurate, and non-stereotypical representation of Judaism in school materials.

The selection of topics addressed in the units began with a critical review of Catholic religious education textbooks used in Italian schools. Two working groups—each composed of representatives from the respective institutions—collaborated using a dialogical and interactive methodology, which was also employed in the drafting of the present article. The units were structured to respond to specific questions and to address topics considered most susceptible to distorted or incomplete portrayals. The first phase of the project formally concluded on 17 January 2023, while the official presentation of the “16 Units for Understanding Judaism” took place at the MEIS Museum in Ferrara on 15–16 March 2023.

Since the official launch of the teaching units only took place in March 2023, systematic evidence of their classroom implementation is not yet available. It should also be noted that the primary addressees of the materials are textbook authors, editors, and those responsible for teacher training. Before any classroom outcomes can be meaningfully assessed, it will therefore be necessary to evaluate the impact of the units on textbook production and on the training of Catholic Religious Education teachers. Such an inquiry, however, represents a distinct line of research, complementary to but beyond the scope of the present article, which is conceived as a first hermeneutic exploration of the corpus and of the collaborative governance model that produced it.

In this initial stage, the UCEI–CEI project focused exclusively on the Jewish tradition. However, additional units dedicated to Christianity are already under development, with the aim of broadening the perspective and reinforcing the principle of epistemological reciprocity. The project ultimately seeks to promote mutual knowledge based on complexity, historical truth, and respect for the Other (Spreafico 2021).

The declared aim is to overcome the cultural barriers perpetuated by ignorance and to critically confront the legacy of centuries of anti-Jewish hostility, forced conversions, and various forms of antisemitism—often justified in the name of faith or revealed truth (Calimani 2007). These elements, also conveyed through Italian cultural and artistic production, still represent fertile ground for the reproduction of antisemitic attitudes, especially where the educational system lacks the tools to deconstruct them critically (Maestri and Cassuto Morselli 2022).

Within this context, educational governance acquires strategic significance: it enables a focus on shared responsibility in the construction of inclusive memory and the promotion of relationships grounded in justice, equity, and fully conscious democratic citizenship. This lays the foundation for a reconciliatory perspective based on restorative justice—capable of critically and decisively deconstructing the theological paradigm of “submission” that has historically shaped the relationship between Christianity and Judaism (Di Norman 2023).

The CEI–UCEI educational units thus represent not only an innovative teaching tool, but also a concrete support for fostering Jewish-Christian dialogue and for advancing a process of reconciliation understood not as a symbolic or abstract gesture, but as an educational, cultural, and historical path oriented toward restoring complexity, truth, and the dignity of the Other.

From an educational perspective, this approach translates into inclusive teaching practices that can value diversity and acknowledging the role of historical narrative in shaping both personal and collective identity. Judaism is no longer presented as a mere “prelude,” “shadow,” “justification,” or “surpassing” of Christianity, but rather as an autonomous, vital, and dynamic tradition whose cultural production has spanned centuries, significantly contributing to the development of Western thought, sciences, arts, and philosophy.

Jewish presence is historically resilient and cannot be reduced solely to a religious dimension; instead, it requires a broader and more nuanced interpretation—one that embraces its complex identity, social fabric, and cultural expressions. It is crucial to recognize the specificity of a belonging that, despite centuries of persecution by both dominant religious systems, has neither dissolved nor assimilated, but has instead preserved a deep sense of identity while actively participating in the life of the societies in which it existed. This historical experience attests to the possibility of combining cultural rootedness with participatory openness, offering a model of citizenship that can meaningfully contribute to the civil, political, cultural, and scientific development of contemporary pluralistic societies.

From this perspective, educational governance can also be understood as an ethical action—a process oriented toward the transformation of the present through a responsible, critical, and conscious engagement with the past. It aims to deconstruct all forms of anti-Judaism (Stefani 2015) and antisemitism (Di Castro and Meghnagi 2021; Santerini 2023), not only by acknowledging the enduring stereotypes and the wounds they continue to inflict, but also by deeply interrogating the theological and cultural roots of the so-called theology of substitution, with all its historical, symbolic, and pedagogical implications. Only through a shared commitment grounded in educational responsibility can we foster more just narratives, promote more equitable relationships, and build a coexistence truly rooted in shared memory and mutual respect.

This article adopts a qualitative approach and is structured into four main phases:

• a contextual reconstruction of the project’s origins and objectives;
• a descriptive mapping of the sixteen educational units, organized into three thematic clusters;
• the joint development of a hermeneutical framework, through which five key interpretive axes were identified (canonical structure, study practices, textual identity, inter-traditional comparison, and dialogical enhancement);
• a data analysis phase, centered on a qualitative examination of selected exemplary units—particularly those dedicated to the figures of Jesus/Yeshua and Paul/Shaul—analyzed for their educational potential and intercultural relevance.

The article concludes with a critical discussion of the findings, highlighting how this interreligious initiative may represent a transformative model of educational governance—one capable of overcoming centuries of theological antagonism, fostering mutual recognition, and encouraging the co-production of knowledge through inclusive learning practices.

2. Research Design and Methodology

This study adopts a hermeneutic-interpretative approach grounded in dialogical epistemology. The design is characterized by a dual-voice methodology, shaped by Jewish and Christian cultural-religious perspectives. Both authors are epistemically situated as engaged insiders: their respective positionalities are not treated as biases to be eliminated, but as hermeneutic resources that enrich both analysis and interpretation. This aligns with constructivist and dialogical paradigms in qualitative research (Guba and Lincoln 1994; Kögler 1999, 2007), where the researcher’s horizon of experience actively shapes the interpretive process. As Corbin and Strauss (2015, p. 29) note, “An important consideration in theory building is what the researcher brings to the research process in terms of philosophies, experience, professional background, and interests.”

The distinctiveness of this dual approach also derives from the profiles of the two scholars: a Catholic pedagogue, long involved in religious education with a focus on Catholic instruction in schools, and a Jewish pedagogue, deeply engaged in the fields of human rights and Holocaust memory, who has expressed some critical reservations regarding the presence of Catholic religious instruction in public education. These different yet complementary perspectives create a reflexive interpretive space, animated by mutual listening and critical dialogue.

The analytical process draws on the principles of Hermeneutic Content Analysis (HCA), a qualitative methodology that combines thematic coding with interpretive depth (Erlingsson and Brysiewicz 2017; Vieira and de Queiroz 2017). The corpus consists of 16 educational sheets jointly developed by the Italian Episcopal Conference (CEI) and the Union of Italian Jewish Communities (UCEI), aimed at supporting Catholic authors in presenting Jewish culture and spirituality, especially within the framework of Catholic religious education.

The analysis began with an immersive, open-ended reading of the full corpus by both researchers, conducted independently. Each scholar identified conceptually coherent units of meaning relevant to the study’s aim—namely, fostering mutual understanding and interreligious dialogue. These units were then assigned open codes through an inductive process (Corbin and Strauss 2015), and subsequently grouped into broader thematic categories, with particular attention to structural and semantic relationships.

At this stage, a series of dialogical meetings were held to discuss and refine the coding structure, explore interpretive tensions, and collaboratively build a shared understanding of the key themes. This cross-perspective validation made it possible to recognize nuanced meanings that might otherwise remain latent. In this sense, the analytical process reflects the dynamics of the hermeneutic circle (Gadamer [1960] 1975), as interpretation moved continuously between individual textual segments and the overall framework of meaning.

To ensure ethical integrity and epistemic responsibility, the authors jointly agreed that the Jewish scholar would draft the section concerning textual data analysis. Given that the corpus is composed of materials intended to represent Judaism and challenge misinterpretations and prejudice, it was deemed both ethically and hermeneutically appropriate that the final interpretive voice on the adequacy and representativeness of the content belong to a researcher from within that tradition. This choice reflects a commitment to dialogical authenticity, where interreligious collaboration affirms, rather than neutralizes, cultural difference as a precondition for credible interpretation.

The analytical process was conducted without the aid of computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS). This methodological choice was deliberate: by relying on a paper-and-pencil approach, each researcher could engage with the texts in a culturally situated, embodied, and dialogically attentive manner. This manual process enabled a more reflective and context-sensitive analysis, privileging depth and relational insight over procedural automation.

At the same time, we recognize that a non-digital approach may entail limitations in terms of replicability, scalability, and the absence of automated cross-checking tools. Yet, precisely because it resists procedural standardization, manual reading also makes it possible for what strikes the human interpreter to emerge more freely and freshly, in light of her or his cultural and epistemic horizon. In our case, the coexistence of two different sensibilities created a fertile dialogical space where interpretive intuitions could surface without being filtered or prematurely categorized by software. The choice of a paper-and-pencil methodology thus reflects not only a hermeneutic instance but also an ethical one, as it allowed the researchers’ distinct cultural perspectives to interact openly and productively in the interpretive process.

The analysis followed a multi-step process, grounded in hermeneutic content analysis principles:

• Immersive reading: Each researcher conducted an individual close reading of the corpus, noting initial impressions and emerging themes.
• Identification of meaning units: Relevant and conceptually coherent textual segments were identified and highlighted.
• Open coding: The units of meaning were labeled with inductive conceptual codes aimed at capturing elements linked to interreligious understanding, respect, and deconstruction of prejudice.
• Thematic grouping: The codes were aggregated into higher-order themes, mapping patterns and connections across the corpus.
• Dialogical validation: Through collaborative sessions, the two researchers critically refined the thematic map, exploring divergences and convergences through their distinct interpretive lenses.

Rather than seeking a homogenized interpretation, the study sought to construct a shared hermeneutic framework that respects the integrity of each epistemic and cultural standpoint (Ricoeur 2007). This dialogical orientation not only enriched the interpretive process but served as a model of interreligious engagement itselfone that demonstrates how knowledge production can become a space of encounter, reciprocity, and mutual transformation.

To ensure the trustworthiness of the research, the study adheres to key qualitative research quality criteria (Guba and Lincoln 1994): credibility was pursued through iterative dialogue and cross-perspective validation; transferability was supported by providing rich contextualization of both the corpus and the analytic procedures; dependability was ensured by documenting methodological choices transparently; and confirmability was addressed through reflexive awareness of the researchers’ positionalities and the collaborative nature of interpretive decisions.

Given the sensitive nature of the topic—representation of Jewish tradition in Catholic religious education materials—ethical reflection was central to the entire process. The distribution of interpretive authority, especially in entrusting the Jewish co-author with the final analytic voice, is not only methodologically coherent but ethically essential. This gesture reflects a broader commitment to epistemic responsibility and hermeneutic respect, where the integrity of the tradition being interpreted is safeguarded through dialogical accountability.

3. Transformative Governance and Inter-Institutional Dialogue: The Case of the Educational Units on Judaism

3.1. Object of Analysis

In order to initiate a more detailed analysis of the content emerging from the thematic units, this phase involved the collection, systematization, and categorization of the material. The sixteen units on Judaism, while not uniform in length or internal structure, are organized into three clearly defined thematic clusters:

• Core Concepts of Judaism (6 units): The Hebrew Bible; The Written and Oral Torah; The Name of God; The Election of Israel; Justice and Mercy; Precepts and Values.
• Life in Jewish Communities (4 units): The Jewish Calendar and the Festival Cycle; The Cycle of Jewish Life; Priests, Rabbis and… Priests; Women in Jewish Culture.
• The History of the Jewish People (6 units): The Jewish People and the Land of Israel; Jesus/Yeshua the Jew; Paul/Shaul the Jew; A Brief History of Italian Jews; Jewish-Christian Dialogue from the Second Vatican Council to the Present; Clarification of the Proper Meaning of Selected Terms.

Based on this thematic articulation, the following analytical question was posed: how can these educational units be read and utilized not merely as didactic tools, but also as opportunities for intercultural and interreligious engagement—particularly between the Jewish and Catholic representatives involved in their development? The interpretive approach adopted therefore differs from the original intent linked to Catholic religious education and instead embraces a perspective of educational governance that privileges the exchange of interpretive frameworks, the appreciation of difference, and the construction of a shared language.

Interpretive categories were thus identified to support a shared reading of the materials, aimed at fostering critical reflection and dialogue among educators. Particular attention was paid to the need to avoid a reductive interpretation of Judaism solely as a “religion,” as such an approach risks flattening its historical and identity-based complexity. As Haim Baharier (2008) notes, Judaism is not so much a system of dogmas as it is a hermeneutic practice—a pedagogy of listening and an ethic of responsibility toward the Other, aimed at preventing all forms of idolatry, including intellectual ones. This perspective calls for a rethinking of the conceptual categories typically employed in interreligious dialogue, encouraging a deeper and more plural understanding of the identities at play.

3.2. The Selection of Interpretive Categories in Jewish–Catholic Dialogue: A Qualitative Analysis

Within the framework of the joint project between the Union of Italian Jewish Communities (UCEI) and the Italian Episcopal Conference (CEI), the reading of the sixteen thematic units raised a central methodological question: which analytical categories should be adopted to carry out a truly meaningful and mutually relevant investigation for both religious traditions involved? This epistemological reflection emerged naturally when it became apparent that many of the topics addressed extended beyond a purely religious dimension, incorporating historical, geographical, and political aspects. These latter dimensions, by their very nature, do not always allow for a direct or symmetrical comparison with the Catholic perspective. It is important to emphasize that the units are not intended as catechetical tools, but rather as pedagogical resources: they aim to provide accurate and contextually grounded information on Judaism, with the goal of deconstructing stereotypes, prejudices, and distorted knowledge, which may underlie latent or overt forms of antisemitism.

This objective introduced certain limitations to the uniform application of the proposed interpretive categories. Specifically, for three of the sixteen teaching units, it was not possible to apply the following interpretive axes, which had initially been defined as a shared analytical framework:

• The structure and nature of the Jewish canon: composition and significance;
• Study practices and liturgical uses of Scripture;
• The identity-related perception of Jewish texts within the two religions;
• Comparison between canons and traditions;
• Interreligious and interpretive dialogue as mutual enrichment.

The remaining thirteen units were analyzed individually using a qualitative approach, with a dual aim: on one hand, to assess the degree of completeness with respect to the Jewish perspective; on the other, to evaluate how the Catholic reading is able to recognize and value differences, fostering genuine intercultural understanding.

This methodology made it possible to avoid generalizations and instead appreciate the unique value of each unit as a specific educational resource, rooted in a clearly defined cultural and pedagogical context.

Since it is not feasible here to present a comprehensive account of all the analyses generated through this twofold lens, a selection of significant examples is provided. These highlight useful elements for rethinking educational practices from a dialogical standpoint, encouraging critical engagement with knowledge and offering concrete tools for developing educational paths grounded in encounter, mutual respect, and shared reflection across different cultural and religious worldviews.

3.3. Comparison of Interpretations

A paradigmatic example of this analytical approach is provided by the first unit, dedicated to the “Hebrew Bible.” Using the category “Structure and Nature of the Jewish Canon” as a reference point, the plurality of perspectives on the same subject becomes immediately apparent. Even the term “Bible” reveals a significant divergence: the Jewish tradition refers to it as the Tanakh, whereas the Christian tradition uses expressions such as “Old Testament” or “First Testament,” both of which carry theological significance and historical implications. The term “testament” is foreign to the Jewish tradition, which emphasizes the centrality of the text and its oral interpretation.

The Hebrew Bible is composed of three main sections—Torah (Law/Teaching), Nevi’im (Prophets), and Ketuvim (Writings)—which are interrelated in a continuous hermeneutical process. The Torah is studied exclusively in Hebrew, alongside the rabbinical commentaries developed over centuries, making it not only a source of knowledge but also an ethical and normative guide.

The Catholic reading highlights how the very concept of “canon” is inherently Christian, insofar as it implies a recognized authority capable of determining what is canonical. Nonetheless, it also acknowledges that the Jewish tradition has developed rigorous criteria for attributing sacredness and respect to specific texts. Particularly noteworthy for a Christian audience is the way the Tanakh is read in synagogues: its division into Torah, Nevi’im, and Ketuvim offers an interpretive key that diverges significantly from the Christian classification, which tends to group texts by genre (historical, wisdom, prophetic) but on a theological basis.

Still referring to the first analytical category, “Structure and Nature of the Jewish Canon,” the second unit highlights a fundamental element of Jewish tradition: the coexistence of a Written Torah (the Five Books attributed to Moses) and an Oral Torah. The Written Torah (Torah shebikhtav), the core of the Hebrew Bible, has, from the outset, coexisted with an Oral Torah (Torah shebe’al peh), transmitted orally for centuries and regarded as indispensable for the interpretation of the written text. This duality reveals that the Jewish canon is not sealed within a single textual body but is open to interpretive processes and evolving meanings.

A key insight is that the Oral Torah is not merely a supplementary commentary; rather, it interprets, explicates, and renders the Written Torah applicable, generating a comprehensive legal and moral system—halakhah—that governs every aspect of life. The Oral Torah is based on an ongoing chain of transmission which was committed to writing only after the destruction of the Second Temple, beginning with the redaction of the Mishnah (2nd–3rd century CE), followed by the Talmudim of Jerusalem and Babylon.

Significantly, the unit underscores the contemporary vitality of the Oral Torah, which continues to shape Jewish ethical reflection on complex issues such as bioethics, environmental stewardship, and the dignity of life. A foundational principle thus emerges: the Torah remains a living and operative tradition, because it is anchored in the continuous listening to and reinterpretation of human experience.

This perspective invites a novel reflection within the Catholic world as well, which has traditionally been shaped by an Augustinian reading that views the First Testament as fulfilled in the New Testament—thereby depriving it of theological autonomy and significance. Within this framework, Jewish history after Jesus would no longer be recognized as part of the history of salvation.

In this context, the production of the Mishnah and the Talmud in the centuries following the destruction of the Second Temple and the Jewish diaspora beginning in 70 CE was long perceived as an anomaly or even a threat to Christian truth. Over the centuries, this perception justified various forms of violent discrimination—including book burnings, forced conversions, persecutions, expulsions, and the imposition of ghettos. Today, recognizing the vitality and authority of the post-biblical Jewish canon represents a crucial step toward overcoming centuries of denial and fostering an interreligious dialogue truly grounded in respect and mutual understanding.

The Catholic reading underscores that, in rabbinic tradition, Moses is said to have received both the Written Torah (the Pentateuch) and the Oral Torah (teachings transmitted orally to accompany the reading of the Torah) on Mount Sinai. The Oral Torah ultimately encompasses the entire body of Jewish religious law, the halakhah (“law of proper conduct”): “The Oral Torah and the Written Torah form an inseparable unity, the former being the authoritative interpretation of the latter. According to tradition, both Torot were given simultaneously to Moses at Sinai, and neither can exist without the other” (p. 12). The written text itself (Deut 17:8–11) speaks of the interpretive authority of the Levites and the judge, who are considered the custodians of the Oral Torah.

“The fact that it was transmitted orally accounts for its vitality: it is not immutable but living and continuously evolving” (p. 12). To prevent its loss—especially after the destruction of the Second Temple—figures such as the scribes mentioned in the book of Ezra (7:6,10) emerged. It was then that the Oral Torah began to be progressively written down in the Mishnah.

The fourth unit, “The Election of Israel,” provides an interpretive key aimed at challenging deeply rooted prejudices historically sustained by supersessionist theology. The analysis conducted through the lens of the category “Identity Perception of Jewish Texts in the Two Religions” highlights a significant divergence: in Judaism, the concept of election does not imply privilege, superiority, or exclusivity; rather, it points to a profound ethical commitment and collective responsibility. Leviticus 19:2—“You shall be holy, for I, the Lord your God, am holy”—is interpreted not as a claim to superiority, but as a call to distinctiveness: to be set apart to resist moral degradation, idolatry, conformity, and dependency.

Jewish identity, from this perspective, is constructed through the knowledge and daily practice of the commandments (Mitzvot) transmitted in the Torah and subsequently codified in the Mishnah. These commandments aim to safeguard the sanctity of the human being, benefiting both the individual and the wider community.

In the Christian tradition, the concept of election is interpreted through the lens of the New Testament, but also considering the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. According to this view, “In Christian theology, its own election does not replace that of Israel, but completes it, in the sense that it fulfills the openness to the nations that was promised to Israel” (p. 21). Alongside Nostra Aetate (no. 4), the foundational text for Jewish–Christian dialogue referenced in the unit, it is also useful to consider the speech delivered by Pope John Paul II at the Great Synagogue of Rome on 13 April 1986, in which the Jewish people were addressed as “our elder brothers.”

This reading proves invaluable for interreligious dialogue, as it fosters the deconstruction of theological and cultural stereotypes, promotes a genuine understanding of the specificity of Judaism, and opens educational spaces for encounter grounded in respect, attentive listening, and the appreciation of difference. Such an approach enables a shift in the axis of comparison—from a paradigm of opposition to one of shared responsibility in the construction of a pluralistic and democratic civic life.

From the second group of units, the analysis of Women in Jewish Culture is particularly noteworthy, due to the ongoing relevance and sensitivity of this theme in interreligious and intercultural dialogue. The analytical category adopted here is that of Study practices and liturgical uses of Scripture. Traditionally, women in Jewish contexts were not obligated to study the Torah, although they were permitted to do so. This position reflected cultural and normative arrangements influenced both by internal Jewish dynamics and by broader historical contexts. Nonetheless, historical documentation attests to a significant female presence in the world of study, as evidenced by emblematic figures from the Italian Renaissance—such as Leona Da Fano—or by the literary character Dina in the epistolary writings of Shemuel Archivolti.

In contemporary times, women’s access to the study of the Torah has expanded significantly, thanks to the contributions of Reform and Conservative movements, and even within certain Orthodox circles. Scholars such as Nechama Leibowitz and Tamar Ross have redefined Jewish hermeneutics by introducing gender-sensitive perspectives that have renewed the interpretation of the Tanakh and the Talmud. Today, the Jewish world presents itself as a pluralistic landscape in which women’s participation in the transmission and interpretation of Scripture is increasingly recognized and valued.

From the Catholic perspective, particular interest lies in the rationale according to which women, not being bound by time-dependent commandments, possess—by virtue of their biological and social condition—an internal temporal structure connected to motherhood, care, and bodily cycles. Although originating from a different religious tradition, this reflection invites pedagogical inquiry into the relationship between norms, corporeality, and spirituality. Moreover, in Jewish thought, it is affirmed that Torah study—while not obligatory for women—is nevertheless essential for transmitting knowledge to one’s children. This notion of shared educational responsibility offers valuable insights for internal Catholic debates as well. In this light, reflection on education and women’s participation in sacred knowledge becomes a fruitful node for interreligious dialogue and the development of educational paths grounded in reciprocity, respect for difference, and inclusion.

From the third section of the educational units, two particularly significant contributions are worth highlighting—those dedicated to the figures of Jesus/Yeshua and Paul/Saul. These topics, rarely addressed from an intra- or interreligious perspective, offer a unique opportunity to foster greater clarity within the Catholic world and to raise historical and identity awareness within Jewish communities. The recognition of Jesus’ Jewish identity, his historical context, and his cultural and spiritual experiences enables a move beyond distorted interpretations and encourages a more authentic theological and pedagogical dialogue between the two faiths.

In Unit 12, “Jesus/Yeshua the Jew” examined through the interpretive lens of Interreligious and Interpretative Dialogue as Mutual Valorization, it becomes evident that the recognition of shared biblical roots constitutes an essential starting point for any genuine dialogue between Judaism and Christianity. The Jewish identity of Jesus is not a marginal detail, but rather a foundational element that opens new perspectives in understanding the relationship between the two religious traditions. Overcoming the theology of supersessionism and explicitly condemning antisemitism are, in this sense, fundamental steps toward building an authentic culture of respect.

This view aligns with thinkers such as Martin Buber (Werblowsky 1988) who hoped that Israel might one day recognize in Jesus a figure of significance within its own religious history. Likewise, contemporary Catholic reflection emphasizes that the Jewish people must not be regarded as a “surpassed past,” but rather as the “living root” of Christian identity. From this perspective, the unit offers—according to the Catholic reading—a clear and exemplary model of an appropriate approach to Jewish-Christian dialogue: a Christianity that, in opening itself to Judaism, rediscovers its own roots and reinterprets itself through the lens of the other.

Particularly meaningful in this regard is the statement found in the Guidelines for a Correct Presentation of Judaism (Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews 2015), which reads:

“The rediscovery of the Jewishness of Jesus is one of the most significant developments in Jewish-Christian dialogue in recent decades. Jesus is Jewish, and remains so forever. For centuries, Jesus was de-Judaized, estranged, Hellenized, Latinized, Europeanized, and de-historicized. This has led to a renewed effort to return him to his origins. To understand him more authentically, one must better understand Judaism”.

(p. 67)

Within this framework, the conciliar document Nostra Aetate (n. 4) is also reinterpreted, emphasizing that the aim of dialogue is no longer framed in terms of the “final conversion” of Israel, but rather as a process of mutual recognition and deep respect for difference.

Unit 13, “Paul/Shaul the Jew” represents an innovative contribution to the landscape of Jewish-Christian dialogue, addressing the figure of Paul of Tarsus—central to the Christian tradition—from a Jewish perspective. Traditionally regarded as the one who marked a rupture from Judaism, Paul is now being critically re-evaluated by both Christian and Jewish scholarship, which increasingly affirms his full belonging to the Jewish world of the first century.

The analysis of this unit, developed through the lens of Comparison between Canons and Traditions, highlights the significance of this collaborative initiative promoted by the UCEI and the CEI as a meaningful exercise in religious governance. The project constitutes a transformative and educational action: it works to deconstruct stereotypes that perpetuate antisemitism and promotes pathways of knowledge capable of fostering critical awareness, intercultural openness, and constructive dialogue.

From a Jewish perspective, the canonical comparison emerges in Paul’s reinterpretation of the Torah. He maintains a positive view of the Law—regarding it as “holy and just”—but not binding for non-Jews. According to Paul, Gentiles may attain messianic salvation not through the observance of the 613 commandments, but through faith. What emerges is a theology of inclusion, rather than one of replacement. Within this perspective, Paul’s distinction from the “pillars” of the Church of Jerusalem (James, Peter, John) becomes apparent, stemming from the apocalyptic urgency that characterizes his mission. He perceives himself as a “new Jeremiah,” entrusted with the task of gathering the nations into the history of salvation before the imminent coming of the Messiah. His aim is not to replace Israel, but rather to establish a new people alongside it, reaffirming Israel’s role and dignity within the divine salvific plan.

The Catholic commentary emphasizes the importance of reading Paul’s message within the framework of Jewish and Christian apocalyptic thought, where the messianic manifestation precedes the end of times (cf. 1 Thess 4:15–16; 1 Cor 15:23). In this context, his evangelizing mission is revealed as an urgent and prophetic calling—one that does not break with, but rather continues and opens itself toward, the Jewish tradition.

The study of Paul/Shaul from this shared Jewish-Catholic perspective presents a valuable educational opportunity. Reconsidering his Jewish identity not only helps to repair historical misunderstandings but also encourages a more nuanced and respectful engagement with the common roots of the two faiths. In educational settings, such a reinterpretation can foster critical understanding of religious history, promote empathy toward otherness, and support an authentic and informed interreligious dialogue. It constitutes a meaningful pedagogical practice that contributes to building a citizenship rooted in mutual recognition, respect for diversity, and the shared pursuit of meaning.

In conclusion, this comparative analysis demonstrates the potential of the UCEI–CEI project not only as an educational tool, but also as a laboratory for dialogical governance. The methodological choices adopted, as well as the capacity for co-construction between religious communities with distinct histories and canons, constitute an exemplary case of educational mediation and intercultural management of religious knowledge. The entire experience, in addition to providing high-quality educational materials, encourages a rethinking of the categories through which we interpret and teach religious pluralism in Italian schools.

4. Between Clarification and Encounter: The “Sixteen Sheets on Judaism” as a Tool for Interreligious Dialogue

The qualitative analysis conducted on the textual corpus of the Sixteen Sheets on Judaism reveals a narrative and conceptual framework that aligns coherently with the project’s declared objective: to provide tools for the deconstruction of stereotypes and prejudices concerning Judaism—still present, whether implicitly or explicitly, in Christian contexts, including educational and catechetical environments. In this interpretative discussion of the data, we aim to articulate more clearly the hermeneutical structure of the work and, most importantly, to highlight its potential for fostering a deeper and more meaningful interreligious dialogue between Judaism and Christianity.

The sheets adopt accessible yet unsimplified language and operate within a hermeneutic perspective that seeks to restore the intrinsic dignity and autonomy of the Jewish tradition, resisting reductive or theologically outdated representations. These sixteen sheets represent a valuable case study, offering multiple entry points into the complex realm of Jewish–Christian dialogue, particularly in relation to the Catholic Church.

4.1. The Perspective of Interreligious Dialogue

As noted during the official presentation of the book (featuring representatives from both Jewish and Catholic communities), the project offers structured support to authors of Catholic religion textbooks (and by extension to teachers of religion) in presenting Judaism accurately and respectfully. The primary goal is to correct and prevent misleading portrayals—often made in good faith—that may inadvertently convey a distorted image of Jewish culture and religion. Such distortions can lead to misunderstandings, biases, and even provide fertile ground for the resurgence of antisemitism, which appears to be on the rise today. This endeavor is set within the broader framework of Jewish–Christian dialogue, to which one of the sheets (no. 15) is explicitly dedicated. It highlights the significant progress made since the Second Vatican Council, particularly referencing the Nostra aetate declaration (Vatican Council II 1965b), which emphasized interreligious dialogue and affirmed the unique and enduring relationship between Christianity and Judaism. Equally relevant is the dogmatic constitution Dei Verbum (Vatican Council II 1965a), which contributed to a new era of biblical studies by valuing the Hebrew Scriptures within the context of Jewish life and faith.

A careful analysis of the speeches available (in Italian) on the CEI website demonstrates how Jewish contributors focus primarily on clarifying theological concepts prone to misinterpretation, while Catholic speakers emphasize situating the publication within the broader trajectory of interreligious dialogue—one that is expected and hoped to move forward toward greater reciprocity. This intention is clearly articulated in Sheet 15:

The First Covenant has never been revoked, as Pope John Paul II said in Mainz in 1980: "Since Ha-Shem is faithful to His covenants, let us also be faithful, helping to prepare for the day when He will convert the nations to a clear language, “so that all may call on the name of the Lord and serve Him shoulder to shoulder” (Zeph 3:9), different but united (CEI and UCEI 2023, p. 83).

While our analysis of the data focuses primarily on the foundational aim of the sheets—the clarification of Jewish identity and history—we also attend to their broader implications for interreligious dialogue. This dual reading is particularly relevant from both Jewish (Selvén 2017) and Catholic (Baum 2011) perspectives. The overall strategy at play is one of displacing the gaze: Judaism is not depicted as an incomplete forerunner of Christianity but as a living tradition with its own theological coherence, interpretative authority, and spiritual vitality (see Boyarin 2019). This perspective is supported by the 2015 document from the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, “The Gifts and the Calling of God Are Irrevocable” (Rom 11:29), which affirms:

Judaism is not to be considered simply as another religion; the Jews are instead our ‘elder brothers’ (Saint Pope John Paul II), our ‘fathers in faith’ (Benedict XVI). Jesus was a Jew, was at home in the Jewish tradition of his time and was decisively shaped by this religious milieu” (n. 14).

Beyond some misunderstandings generated by the use of the expression “elder brothers”—an expression that was nevertheless appreciated for its empathetic and affectionate tone—the document clarifies the context in which that statement was made. The new perspectives of Jewish-Christian dialogue focus above all on the idea that the covenant with Israel is by no means “superseded,” but remains fully operative and capable of bearing specific fruits of salvation. For this reason, as Pawlikowski (2017) argues, “Christian-Jewish dialogue according to G&C can be called ‘interreligious dialogue’ in an analogical way”. (p. 3).

4.2. Beyond the Supersessionist Approach

This approach critically distances itself from supersessionist theology, which historically claimed that the old covenant had been entirely abrogated by the coming of Christ. This perspective—deeply rooted in medieval theology (Cohen 2017)—has undergone significant revision since Vatican II. The theology of substitution, wherein the Church is seen as the “new Israel” replacing the “old,” is no longer endorsed. Instead, the sheets reflect a dialogical theology that moves beyond supersessionism, which can perpetuate bias and even racism (Joslyn-Siemiatkoski 2022; Novak 2019; Tucker 2018). This new approach affirms the legitimacy of Judaism as a permanent covenantal path with God—not as a faith awaiting fulfillment in Christianity. As Joslyn-Siemiatkoski (2022) writes:

Anti-supersessionist theology asks whether Israel’s election as the first instance of God’s redemptive covenanting can be seen as having universal significance for the Church and not merely represent a past reality (Joslyn-Siemiatkoski 2022, p. 8).

The discursive structure of the sheets incorporates multiple registers—narrative, exegetical, historical, and liturgical—which together contribute to a multifaceted portrayal of Jewish identity. This internal pluralism is crucial to resisting the reification of religious “otherness,” a process that often reduces the other to a monolithic, ahistorical abstraction. In this regard, the sheets exemplify a textual practice aligned with Ricœur’s notion of “hermeneutic listening” and offer a form of epistemic hospitality in which the other’s voice is acknowledged in its complexity and authenticity.

At the same time, the sheets adopt a dialogical stance that goes beyond correcting historical or doctrinal inaccuracies. The engagement with Judaism is not merely a theological or cultural adjustment; it becomes a transformative experience for the Christian reader, who is invited to reconsider their own tradition in light of a genuine encounter with the religious other. This process embodies what David Tracy (1981) terms “mutual dialogical criticism,” wherein interreligious dialogue entails not just mutual recognition but also the fruitful interrogation of one’s own assumptions. This theological posture was powerfully articulated by Pope John Paul II in a speech related to the Redemptoris missio:

Believers, while remaining faithful to their own religious convictions and without falling into false irenicism, can and should engage in a truthful, humble and frank dialogue with the followers of other religious traditions, in order to eliminate intolerance and misunderstanding (…). Genuine dialogue leads to inner purification and conversion (cf. ibid.), and it is only such a spiritual renewal which will save the world from further widespread sufferings (Pope John Paul II 1992).

4.3. Some Key Points for a Deeper Dialogue

Thus, the Sixteen Sheets may be seen as a pedagogical practice of dialogue, contributing to what Moore (2014) calls religious literacy—not merely the knowledge of the other, but a critical awareness of one’s own theological and cultural assumptions. This is particularly urgent in today’s pluralistic world, where Catholic theology has developed a strong theology of dialogue (Schmidt-Leukel 2017), exemplified in moments such as the interreligious prayer meeting for peace convened by Pope John Paul II in Assisi on 27 October 1986.

Noteworthy parallels between Jewish and Christian traditions emerge throughout the sheets. One example is the conceptual proximity between the Jewish notion of the Oral Torah and the Christian understanding of Sacred Tradition. While Sheet 2 focuses exclusively on the former, it notes:

The Oral Torah (Torah shebe’al peh) is a fundamental reality of Judaism, for which God’s revelation at Sinai includes not only the written Torah (Torah she- bikhtav) recorded in the Bible, but also an equivalent set of traditions that, until the 2nd century AD, were transmitted only orally (CEI and UCEI 2023, p. 11).

This invites a comparison with Dei Verbum, which affirms that “This sacred tradition, therefore, and Sacred Scripture of both the Old and New Testaments are like a mirror in which the pilgrim Church on earth looks at God, from whom she has received everything” (Vatican Council II 1965a, n. 7). The parallel becomes even more evident in the subsequent passage of the conciliar document, which speaks of divine revelation received by the Apostles from Jesus—a dynamic that, notwithstanding the mystery of the Incarnation, bears certain analogies to the revelation given to Moses on Mount Sinai. This revelation was then transmitted both through the writings of the New Testament and through the spoken words that accompanied them orally:

And so, the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time. Therefore, the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all (see Jude 1:3). Now, what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes (Vatican Council II 1965a, n. 8).

The sheets generate a “language of recognition,” in which the Christian we is not constructed in opposition to the Jewish other, but in full awareness of a shared and intertwined history—marked by both conflict and convergence. This is particularly evident in the sheets dedicated to the Jewish identity of Jesus and Paul. The Jewishness of Jesus has been well established in academic literature, especially in the work of Géza Vermes (1983) and, more recently, Amy-Jill Levine (2007). The sheets emphasize Jesus’s Jewish heritage “Jesus (Yeshua ben Yosef in Hebrew) was born in Bethlehem (…) he spoke Aramaic and Hebrew. These were the languages in which he prayed and taught. He read the Torah in Hebrew” (CEI and UCEI 2023, p. 65). Moreover, it affirms that the first followers of Jesus were Jews who remained Jewish:

The Jews are the ones who welcomed Jesus. Mary and Joseph, John the Baptist, Peter and Andrew, James and John, the other apostles, all the first disciples, Ananias and Paul, and the thousands of members of the first Judeo-Christian community. They did not follow Jesus with the intention of abandoning the faith of their fathers. On the contrary, they followed him in full fidelity to the covenant and the promises made to Israel (CEI and UCEI 2023, p. 66).

The sheet on Paul (Shaul) is also significant, aligning with recent scholarship that locates Paul firmly within Jewish cultural and religious contexts (Nanos and Zetterholm 2015; Boccaccini 2020). It explains:

Having assumed the role of a new Jeremiah, Paul carries out his mission to bring the Gentiles into the history of salvation. His mission is the messianic conversion of the Gentiles in the short time remaining. He seeks to establish a new people in addition to, not as a substitute for, Israel. Furthermore, Paul maintained that non-Jews were not obliged to observe all the precepts of the Torah (CEI and UCEI 2023, p. 69)

The conceptual clarification and deconstruction of stereotypes offered by the sheets is invaluable, especially in a European cultural context still marked by the traumatic legacies of the twentieth century. The fight against contemporary antisemitism requires deep and sustained educational efforts (Johansson 2013). As an educational tool, the sheets enact what may be called narrative justice—the right of individuals, groups, and communities to tell their own stories authentically and to have those stories recognized as legitimate and worthy of attention. This is particularly crucial in educational settings (Osler 2015), where restoring voice to marginalized traditions contributes to a culture of dialogue grounded in the dignity of difference.

5. Conclusions

The Sixteen Sheets on Judaism exemplify an institutional and pedagogical initiative that responds to a pressing governance challenge within the Italian Republic: how to ensure that Catholic religious education promotes accurate, respectful, and stereotype-free representations of Judaism. By adopting a dialogical hermeneutic that honors the intrinsic dignity and theological autonomy of the Jewish tradition, these sheets contribute to dismantling entrenched prejudices that can fuel antisemitism. This approach aligns with the post-conciliar paradigm shift away from supersessionist theology towards a relationship of mutual recognition and respect, grounded in a shared covenantal history. As such, the project embodies a model of religious governance attentive to the complex dynamics of pluralism, education, and interreligious dialogue, fostering a more informed and empathetic public discourse.

This contribution has deliberately focused on the hermeneutic and governance dimensions of the Sixteen Sheets. Since the materials were only recently introduced, their concrete impact—on textbook production, teacher training, and classroom practice—remains to be assessed in future empirical research.

Looking ahead, both Catholic and Jewish leaders have expressed the intention to continue this collaboration by developing further units—including on Christianity itself—thus reinforcing reciprocity. In addition, the partnership is expected to accompany teacher training and support textbook production, ensuring that the transformative potential of the Sixteen Sheets can be fully realized in educational practice.

Building on the successful implementation of the Sixteen Sheets on Judaism as a pedagogical and governance tool within the framework of Catholic religious education in Italy, future applications of this model could extend to other religious traditions represented in pluralistic educational settings. The logic of providing clear, accessible, and theologically respectful informational sheets holds promise for fostering interreligious understanding beyond the Jewish-Christian dyad, potentially encompassing Islam, Buddhism, and other faiths present in Italy’s urban religious landscape. Moreover, within the ongoing Jewish-Christian dialogue, there is an opportunity to reciprocate this approach by developing analogous “sheets for understanding Catholicism” aimed at Jewish educational and communal contexts. Such reciprocal educational initiatives would facilitate a more balanced and empathetic presentation of Catholic identity, contributing to mutual respect and the dismantling of stereotypes on all sides. This envisioned expansion underscores the role of dialogical and institutional governance in cultivating a culture of religious literacy and peaceful coexistence, essential components in the governance of interreligious relations in contemporary urban societies.