Peter judged polemics by whether they matched patristic genre conventions rather than by effectiveness

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 (#expands, via linked claim)

A quick survey of the period suggests that writers often quite unconcernedly combined wholly inconsistent passages, even extremes of accuracy and inaccuracy; that there was a marked preference for what appeared to be facts (of polemic utility or otherwise) over argued polemic; and finally that, although material may often have been repeated because it was interesting, it almost always happened that it had polemic significance as well. Amusement, instruction and controversy were blended. It is worth while to make a closer analysis of the best-informed authors of the thirteenth century; they too failed to discriminate between reliable and unreliable sources, combined conflicting material, and sometimes preferred the poorest. — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1306 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Peter’s polemic survived in one manuscript while the Koran translation survived in eighteen; Peter’s polemics functioned as defensive theology against Arabic philosophy’s appeal — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 854; Polemical literature served as in-group apologetics rather than inter-faith debate — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1429 (+18 more)

Broader Connections

• Medieval polemic debates aimed to display rather than test Christian truth #expands (0.95) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1470
• Peter’s polemics functioned as defensive theology against Arabic philosophy’s appeal #complicates (0.85) — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 854
• Medieval Christian polemicists blended entertainment with controversy, favoring polemically useful facts over accuracy #complicates (0.85) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1306
• Christian polemists preferred their own readings over traditional Islamic interpretation #complicates (0.85)
• Peter the Venerable aimed his anti-Islamic tract at doubting Christians, not Muslims #complicates (0.85) — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 853
• Medieval polemicists used reason and revelation to justify both superiority and subjection #complicates (0.85)
• Judgmental attitudes can hinder understanding of faith. #complicates (0.80) — Dan Harris, 10 percent Happier, 161
• Peter saw Koranic bans on religious debate as contradicting Arab rationality #complicates (0.80) — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 857
• Factual corrections to Christian anti-Islamic polemic only patched a weakened doctrinal structure #complicates (0.80)
• Mediaeval Christian polemicists treated useful falsehood as probable truth #complicates (0.80) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1385
• Medieval polemicists hoped rational argument could unify the faiths #complicates (0.75)
• Theologians’ claims overstated religion-politics fusion to protect their standing #complicates (0.75)
• Protestant-Catholic-Islamic parallels in polemic relied on incredibly thin points #complicates (0.75)
• Most churchgoers endorse any religious-sounding statement regardless of its orientation #complicates (0.75)
• Polemics could condemn a rival religion using only its own scriptures #complicates (0.75)