Medieval polemicists used reason and revelation to justify both superiority and subjection

Evidence

Most authors valued very highly any opportunity of giving this impression, and would have justified their doing so, could they have been sufficiently candid with themselves, on the ground that what deserved to be effective would be so. This might occasionally be made nearly explicit. In the minds of some intellectual leaders the idea of showing forth the truth of Christianity was strong; thus, in the public dispute with the Jewish Rabbi Nachman, which did indeed take place, the communiqué asserted that there was no question of discussing the truth of the Christian faith, but only of making the truth of that faith manifest. This is no doubt why the Christian and Jewish accounts do not altogether agree. — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1470 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Peter judged polemics by whether they matched patristic genre conventions rather than by effectiveness; Medieval polemicists tailored heresy temptations to regional climates; Medieval polemicists hoped rational argument could unify the faiths (+6 more)

Broader Connections

• Medieval polemicists hoped rational argument could unify the faiths #complicates (0.78)
• Medieval crusade ideology asserted enemy culpability as self-evident rather than argued #complicates (0.76)
• Medieval polemic debates aimed to display rather than test Christian truth #complicates (0.74) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1470