Contesting Religious Truth

Abstract

Abstract Christian theologians were involved in anti-Jewish arguments almost since the ‘parting of the ways’ of the two religions. In late antiquity and the early middle ages, anti-Jewish arguments were based almost exclusively on Biblical quotations, which were adduced as evidence meant to substantiate the Christian interpretation of scripture. It was only in the scholastic period that new forms of evidence were included in the traditional argument Adversus Iudaeos, which were derived from the recourse to reason. The Jewish figures presented by Christian authors within their writings are constructed entirely according to Christian assumptions and prejudices; only rarely do we get any real Jewish voices representing points of view close to any kind of Jewish reality. This only changed when growing numbers of Jews converted to Christianity in the high middle ages; Jewish converts drew the attention of Christian authorities to rabbinic literature. At first, the Talmud was targeted as a sinister text allegedly undermining theological truth, but later it was appropriated by Christian propagandists, who tried to base their anti-Jewish arguments on the post-biblical canon of Rabbinic Judaism. The article analyses the gradual expansion of anti-Jewish evidence; in particular, it highlights turning points when anti-Jewish strategies tried to include new methods and media to substantiate the credibility of Christian claims to monopolise religious truth. The Jewish side reacted against such attempts by reinterpreting and rewriting the history of anti-Christian Jewish arguments, notably on the occasion of the Paris Talmud trial. The redirection of Christian-Jewish arguments in the high middle ages provides ample evidence for the study of contesting truths, the substantiation and subversion of validity claims, as well as the rewriting of history in order to further political aims.