Mission to the Jews and Jewish-Christian Contacts in the Polemical Literature of the High

Middle Ages
Author(s): David Berger
Source: The American Historical Review, Vol. 91, No. 3 (Jun., 1986), pp. 576-591
Published by: American Historical Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1869132
Accessed: 25/05/2010 16:42

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aha.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Historical Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
American Historical Review.

http://www.jstor.org
 AHR Forum
Mission to the Jews and
Jewish-Christian Contacts in the
Polemical Literature of the High Middle Ages

DAVID BERGER

SPREADING THE GOOD NEWS has been a principal objective of Christianity since its
infancy. Nevertheless, after the initial Jewish rejection of the Christian message,
the expansionism of the church was directed mainly toward the pagan world, and
it is by no means clear that even those patristic works that were directed adversus
Judaeos were marked by realistic missionary objectives.- Jews, moreover, were
granted unique toleration in Christian Europe on the theological grounds that they
served, however unwillingly, as living testimony to Christian truth and that their
conversion at the end of days was required by biblical prophecy. At the same time,
no one doubted that the acceptance of Christianity by individualJews was devoutly
to be wished. Thus, at its core, the fundamental theory governing Jewish status in
early medieval Europe was marked by tension and ambivalence-a result of the
contradiction between the theoretical goals of a universal Christian mission and an
argument for toleration that came close to discouraging Jewish conversion.
Christian polemic against Jews is a crucial genre for the study of missionary
intentions, and the theoretical tension that I noted is clearly reflected in the
assessment of that literature in the standard study of Jewish-Christian relations
before the First Crusade. Bernhard Blumenkranz devoted much of his Juifs et
Chretiensdans le mondeoccidental,430-1096, to the issues of polemic and mission.2
On the one hand, he indicated that pre-crusade polemic againstJews was intended
for Christian disputants in a context that did not involve a direct and immediate
mission.3 On the other hand, he stressed the persistence of the missionary ideal
as a motive for polemical activity: Christians were impelled by a natural desire to
persuade others of the truth, by the aspirations of believers in a majority faith to
make that faith the exclusive one, and by the great Christian expectation of seeing
all humanity "assembled under the scepter of Christ." To a significant degree,

' See David Rokeah,Jews, Pagans, and Christian-sin Conflict(Jerusalem, 1982), 40-48. Also see my
brief discussion in David Berger, TheJewish-ChristianDebatein the High Middle Ages: A CriticalEdition
of the Nizzahon Vetuswith an Introduction,Translation,and Commentary(Philadelphia, 1979), 4-5.
2 Blumenkranz,Juifs et Chrgtiensdans le mondeoccidental,430-1096 (Paris, 1960).
3 Ibid., 75. On Blumenkranz's complex position, see, especially, note 72, below.

576
 Mission to theJews 577

then, Blumenkranz perceived pre-crusade literary polemics as the result of a

missionary objective.4
If this assessment of the relatively sparse polemical literature written before
1096 is sound, the much richer material from the following century should reflect
a similar motive. But, even if one remains skeptical about a significant missionary
impulse in the early period, a number of considerations require a fresh and careful
look at the possibility of missionary objectives in the elusive twelfth century. First,
the resurgence of polemic, which produced almost twenty works from the late
eleventh through the twelfth century, suggests prima facie a more aggressive
Christian attitude toward conversion of Jews. Second, we know that mission to the
Jews had become an important goal of many Christians by the mid-thirteenth
century,5 and the suddenly numerous polemical works of the previous century are
a tempting and reasonable place to look for the roots of this phenomenon. Third,
the widely admired First Crusade, with its bloody attempt at the forcible conversion
of the Jewish communities in the Rhineland, could have been responsible for
placing mission to the Jews on the agenda of a newly expansionist and assertive
Christendom, and the upsurge of anti-Jewish works could be understood as a
product of that expansionism. Finally, the crucial turning point in the Christian
attitude toward mission to Islam occurs in the twelfth century. Benjamin Z. Kedar's
recent study of this question has pointed to an utter indifference to converting
Muslims during the early Middle Ages that gave way by the mid-twelfth century
to a strong feeling that they should be made Christian. From that point on, there
appears to have been little question of the desirability of mission, and the
controversy was confined to the debate between advocates of force and of
persuasion.6
This question is but one aspect of the broader challenge that the twelfth century
has posed for Jewish historians. The early Middle Ages, with the exception of
Visigothic Spain, were a period of relative peace and opportunity for Europe's
Jews. Only in the eleventh century did some distinct signs of deterioration in their
status begin to emerge, although questions remain about both the extent and the
cause of that decline.7 The century culminated, of course, in the crusade, and by
the late thirteenth century theJews of Northern Europe were subject to expulsions

4 Ibid., 67-68, 152, 216.

5 Although I have some reservations about Jeremy Cohen's conclusions concerning the shift from
tolerance to intolerance of Jews in the thought of the thirteenth- and fourteenth-century friars, his
thorough description of their missionary objectives is correct. See Cohen, TheFriarsand thejews (Ithaca,
N.Y., 1982). For my review, see AHR, 88 (1983): 93.
6 Kedar, Crusade and Mission: European Approachestowardthe Muslims (Princeton, N.J., 1984), esp.
57-74.
7 See Lena Dasberg, Untersuchungenuber die Entwertung des Judenstatus im 11. Jahrhundert (Paris,

1965). Compare the remarks of Amos Funkenstein; "Basic Types of Christian Anti-Jewish Polemics
in the Later Middle Ages," Viator,2 (1971): 377. Also see Gavin Langmuir, "From Ambrose of Milan
to Emicho of Leiningen: The Transformation of Hostility againstJews in Northern Christendom," Gli
Ebrei nell'Alto Medioevo, Settimane di Studio, 26 (Spoleto, 1980): 313-68; and Avraham Grossman,
Hakhmei AshkenazHaRishonim (Jerusalem, 1981), 12-13, 163. Compare the remarks in my review;
Tarbiz, 53 (1984): 480. Also see Robert Chazan, "1007-1012: Initial Crisis for Northern European
Jewry," Proceedingsof theAmericanAcademyforJewish Research,39 (1972): 101-18; and Kenneth R. Stow,
The "1007 Anonymous"and Papal Sovereignty:Jewish Perceptionsof thePapacy and Papal Policy in the High
Middle Ages (Cincinnati, Ohio, 1984).
578 AIHRForum

and persecution. Can a more or less straight line be drawn from the First Crusade
to the expulsions, or was it only in the thirteenth century that relatively new forces
emerged that moved the history of medieval European Jewry toward its tragic
denouement? In the twelfth century, the Second Crusade swept through the
Rhineland, the ritual murder accusation was born, and yet theJewish community
continued to function in a hostile but relatively stable environment. From a cultural
perspective, the period was one of dazzling achievement. Even the acute
contemporary observer would not have seen a people poised at the edge of a
precipice.8
With regard to the question of mission, the historiographical problem posed by
the twelfth century emerges in all of its tantalizing ambiguity in an intentionally
cautious and ambivalent formulation by Salo Baron. "In the Roman and Byzantine
empires, and even in western Europe before the age of the Crusades, the
numerous tracts 'Against the Jews' primarily had Christian audiences in mind.
Now, on the contrary, the Church viewed the apologetic literature as but another
weapon in its march toward world domination. The new offensive, seized
particularly by the preaching orders, also infused new vigor and introduced novel
facets into the polemics which, together with the vastly expanding missionary
sermons and oral disputations, tried to persuade the Jews of the 'foolishness' of
their stubborn perseverance."9 At first, this passage suggests that a change in
Christian attitude occurred at the beginning of "the age of the Crusades," but
almost immediately the emphasis shifts to "the preaching orders," which belong to
the thirteenth century. Once again, the twelfth century is left in a sort of limbo. Was
it a watershed in the use of polemic as a weapon in the church's "march toward world
domination," or does this questionable distinction belong to the age of the friars?'0
I believe this question can be answered unequivocally. Despite the proliferation
of Christian polemics in the late eleventh and twelfth centuries, the evidence is
overwhelming that these works were not rooted in a new or continuing missionary
impulse. An examination of the reasons that polemicists gave for writing their
tracts reveals a remarkable need to apologize for engaging in an activity considered
improper on ideological grounds, and, even when there is no apology, hesitation,
or refusal, the reasons given almost invariably do not include the idea that
Christians should attempt to proselytize Jews.
If this conclusion is correct, then two potential explanations for the upsurge of
Christian polemic remain. First, the primary impulse for this literature may have
come from outside the arena of Jewish-Christian relations and resulted, instead,
from the overall cultural renaissance of the late eleventh and twelfth centuries.
Since no Christian engaged in a careful examination of the sacred texts and
doctrines of Christianity could have avoided a confrontation with Judaism,

8
For a vigorous argument that 1096 was not a watershed in Jewish history, see Robert Chazan's The
First Crusadeand EuropeanJewry (forthcoming).
' Baron, A Social and Religious History of theJews (2d edn., New York, 1965), vol. 9, p. 101.
'0 Amos Funkenstein did not take a clear position on this question in his studies of twelfth-century
Christian polemic. See "HaTemurot BeVikkuah HaDat shebein Yehudim LeNoZrim BaMeah
HaYod-Bet," Zion, 33 (1968): 125-44, and "Basic Types," 373-82.
 Mission to theJews 579

apologetic writings could have been an inevitable consequence of an internal

Christian dynamic. "l
On the other hand, the impetus for these works may lie in Jewish-Christian
interaction of the most vibrant sort. There is no longer any question that someJews
in Northern Europe were involved in discussions of biblical and other issues with
Christian scholars.'2 The polemical literature contains considerable evidence that
ordinaryJews and Christians held lively, informal debates about sensitive religious
matters, and the authors of Christian polemics speak of the need for a response
to aggressive Jewish questions. Such debates no doubt predated the High Middle
Ages, but they may well have intensified as a result of the growing intellectual
sophistication engendered by the cultural revolution that transformed bothJewish
and Christian society in this period. The renaissance of the High Middle Ages
surely facilitated the literary expression of these confrontations by both sides. The
Christian assertions that Jews posed provocative questions with frequency and
vehemence must be taken seriously. Christians were not confronting Jewish
missionaries, but they faced a genuine, vigorous challenge from a proud and
assertive Jewish community.'3

ELEVENTH- AND TWELFTH-CENTURY CHRISTIAN intellectuals had profound reser-

vations about mission to the Jews. Perhaps the most striking illustration of this
position is the outright refusal of Adam of Perseigne (d. 1203) to accede to a
friend's request that he write an anti-Jewish polemic. First, it seemed to him that
his friend was motivated more by the desire to dispute than by zeal for the truth;
second, Christians, he believed, should not be contentious on general principles
(2 Tim. 2: 23-24). Third-and for us most important-the Jews would remain
blind and hard-hearted "until the fulness of the nations will come in" (Rom. 11:25).
The famous verse from Romans, then, predicts the futility of missionary efforts
and may even intend to discourage them; Jewish conversion is reserved for the
eschaton.Later, Adam added a further consideration: Christians should not pollute
themselves with discussions of falsehood but should study Christian doctrines with
pure heart and hands and simple eyes.14 Since Adam could have written a brief
compendium of standard anti-Jewish arguments with little more effort than it took
him to write this letter, I doubt that he was concocting excuses for a refusal
motivated by laziness; this is a genuine, antimissionary ideology.
In one of the earliest polemics of the period, hesitation is followed by acceptance
of responsibility. Peter Damian (d. 1072) mentionedJewish conversion as a reason

I I At
one time, I regarded the influence of internal Christian developments as slightly more central
to the upsurge in polemic than I do now. See my brief remark in TheJewish-ChristianDebate, 16.
12
For an important summary of the evidence, see Aryeh Grabois, "The Hebraica veritas and
Jewish-Christian Intellectual Relations in the Twelfth Century," Speculum, 50 (1975): 613-34.
13 I discuss the state of this question later in this article.
14 Adam of Perseigne, Epistola ad amicum, Patrologia Latina, ed. J. P. Migne (hereafter, PL) 211:
653-59. It bears noting that Adam considered a bad Christian worse than a Jew, who acted in
ignorance; ibid., 657, 659. This reference should be added to Jeremy Cohen's valuable discussion of
the question of Jewish ignorance and culpability in Christian thought. See Cohen, "The Jews as the
Killers of Christ in the Latin Tradition, from Augustine to the Friars," Traditio, 39 (1983): 1-27.
580 AHR Forum

for writing polemic, but almost as an afterthought following an exhortation to

concentrate on more important things than arguing with Jews. Damian was
responding to a request from a churchman named Honestus to provide material
refuting Jewish arguments, and he began by suggesting that, "if you wish to be a
soldier of Christ and fight for him courageously, then take up arms . .. against the
vices of the flesh, the contrivances of the devil-an enemy who will clearly never
die-rather than against the Jews, who will soon be virtually destroyed from the
face of the earth." Nevertheless, he agreed to provide the material because it was
disgraceful (inhonestum)to remain silent while Christianity was insulted, such
silence could arouse doubts in Christian minds, and, finally, Jews might be
converted by well-presented Christian arguments. 15 A reluctant missionary
indeed.
Peter of Blois (d. 1200) provided an even stronger prolegomenon before finally
acquiescing and writing his polemic. He addressed the work to a Christian who
complained that he was surrounded by Jews and heretics and was unequipped to
answer the tricky arguments raised by thejews in their disputations. It was unwise,
Peter said, for someone without good polemical aptitude to debate with a heretic
or a Jew; such disputes, in fact, tended to turn the inexperienced Christian into
a heretic himself. And it was surely absurd to debate a subject like the Trinity. In
effect, Peter argued that Christians need not worry about educating the heretic or
Jew: beasts were not permitted to touch Mount Sinai, and pearls were not to be
cast before swine. 16 Moreover, if one defeats an enemy of the cross in debate, he
will in any event not convert in his heart. As for theJews, they cannot be converted
because God has set them an end that cannot be advanced. One might, it is true,
make an occasional convert, but the rest will persist in their stubbornness.'7
Apparently, the missionary enterprise was not sufficiently justified by the handful
of souls that might be saved.
Peter, of course, did relent and write polemic, and suspicious historians may be
tempted to conclude that this introductory show of reluctance is a disguise for
missionary zeal. In determining twelfth-century attitudes toward mission, how-
ever, what he wrote is decisive, and underlying motives are of secondary
significance as signposts of future developments. In a sense, the point would even
be strengthened, since Peter was apparently embarrassed to be pursuing an
objective that any Christian would have been expected to applaud. It seems
probable that discouraging mission to the Jews was an ideology that arose as a
rationalization to explain centuries of relative indifference toJewish conversion or

15 Peter Damian, Antilogus contraJudaeos,PL 145: 41. See my discussion in "St. Peter Damian: His
Attitude toward the Jews and the Old Testament," YavnehReview, 4 (1965): 83-84. Blumenkranz's
references to this work illustrate his tendency to emphasize missionary motivations. He first cited
Damian's hope for conversion, two pages later he indicated the rather different need to assist Honestus,
and considerably later he referred to the Antilogus without qualification as a "missionary work";Juifs
et Chr6tiens,69, 71, 153.
16 In light of the context of this phrase in the Gospels, its use as an argument against preaching to
Jews is painfully ironic.
17 Peter of Blois, ContraperfidiamJudaeorum,PL 207: 825-27.
 Mission to theJews 581

even as a direct reaction to protracted Jewish stubbornness. Nevertheless, the

reluctance to proselytize among Jews remains both surprising and significant.
Peter relented, he said, because the request came from a person beset (obsessum)
by Jews and heretics. A similar defensive motive is proffered in an anonymous
twelfth-century polemic whose author maintained that he wrote for simple people
and in simple faith, not for the sake of dialectical disputations.Jews, he said, should
not be able to mock Christian ignorance (imperitia)-those Jews "who taunt
[insultant]us all day and say with Goliath, 'Choose someone from among you who
will engage in a one-on-one battle with us."'"18Similarly, Walter of Chatillon
introduced his polemic with the remark that the Jews "not only fail to acquiesce
in the truth of the new grace but even, like retrograde planets, attempt to oppose
the firmament of our faith and pose objections to Christians from the authority
of the Pentateuch. Hence, mindful of their ignorance [again, imperitia,this time
about theJews], we decided to write a book with arguments so compelling that even
... [an] ass will not be able to contradict them."'9 Once more a defensive motive
appears. Whether the conditions described by Peter, Walter, and the anonymous
author of the Tractatusreflect historical reality is an issue to which I shall presently
return, but the reiteration of such defensive claims underscores the absence of
explicit missionary goals.
Rupert of Deutz (d. 1135), like Adam and the two Peters, wrote in response to
a request. Rudolph of St. Trond, at that time abbot of St. Pantaleon in Cologne,
is reported to have had frequent contact with Jews, and he not only requested
Rupert's polemic but subsequently wrote a letter asking for material that would
demonstrate the triune God and the incarnation and discuss the evidence from
Gen. 49:10.20 Rudolph may have been interested in mission, but Rupert, who did
not accede to the request immediately, would not have written polemic on his own
initiative.2'
In addition to Peter Damian's Antilogus,the other anti-Jewish polemics written
in the eleventh century also contain motives that have little to do with mission.
Fulbert of Chartres maintained that his intention was to speak of the errors of

18
Tractatu.sadversusJudaeum,PL 213: 749. The effectiveness of Jewish debaters is also attested in
Bartholomew of Exeter's unpublished "Dialogus contra Judaeos" (early 1180s), which warns against
engaging in public controversies with them. At the same time, Bartholomew remarked (if only in a
subordinate clause) that "we hold discussions with them for their own salvation." There is, then, a
missionary intention blunted by fear of the consequences of disputation. For the relevant passage, see
R. W. Hunt, "The Disputation of Peter of Cornwall against Symon theJew," in R. W. Hunt et al., eds.,
Studies in Medieval HIistoryPresentedto FrederickMaurice Powicke (Oxford, 1948), 147-48.
19 Walter of Chatillon, Tractatussive dialogus contraJudaeos, PL 209: 424-25.
20 "Ein Brief des Chronisten Rudolph von St. Trond an Rupert von Deutz," Neues Archiv, 17 (1892):
617-18. This letter influenced the writing of De glorificationeTrinitatisand perhaps part of De gloria et
honoreFilii hominis.See J. H. Van Engen, Rupert of Deutz (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1983), 246-47,
354-55; and G. Niemeyer, ed., HermannusquondamJudaeus opusculumde conversionesua, Monumenta
Germaniae Historica: Quellen zur Geistgeschichte des Mittelalters, vol. 4 (Weimar, 1963), 5 n. 3, and
41-43. Rudolph's letter sounds like the request of a man who had read Fulbert of Chartres's Tractatus
contraJudaeos,which deals precisely with the topics specified, and found it inadequate in real discussions
with Jews.
21 Rupert of Deutz, Anulussive dialogusinterChristianum etJudaeum,in M. L. Arduini, Rupertode Deutz
e la controversiatra Crnstianied Ebrei nel secoloXII (Rome, 1979), esp. 184. The work is also in PL 170:
559-610.
582 AHR Forum

nonbelievers in general; he began with Jews because they agreed with Christians
in their monotheistic faith and disagreed with respect to several clearly defined
issues: the Trinity, the divinity of the Messiah, and whether or not he had come.22
Gilbert Crispin introduced his enormously influential disputation by saying that
it reflected amicable discussions that he had had with a Jewish acquaintance who
came to him frequently on business and other matters, at which times they
conversed about the Scriptures and issues of faith. He did note that a Jew present
at such discussions converted and became a monk, but he seemed to regard this
as something of an unanticipated bonus rather than the purpose of the conver-
sation and gave no indication that his book was to be used in any special effort to
convert Jews.23
In the following century, an author once thought to be William of Champeaux
produced a sharper version of Crispin's disputation and introduced a reference
to missionary intentions into his paraphrase of Crispin's introductory passage. "I
was acquainted with a certain Jew because of a business affair; as time passed, I
was moved by love to urge him frequently to abandon Judaism and become a
Christian."24Although this work does not, of course, reflect a real experience, the
author's remark is not insignificant, but his assertion is limited to a specific Jew
whom he was allegedly motivated to convert because of personal friendship. No
interest in a broader mission is either stated or implied. At the end of a work
directed mainly at Christian heretics, Alan of Lille appended a chapter on theJews
also derived largely from Crispin. In this case, the structure as well as the content
make it abundantly clear that the author, who also added a chapter on Islam, did
not write out of a missionary zeal directed at Jews.25
Similar attitudes appear in two early twelfth-century polemics concerning the
incarnation. Odo of Cambrai addressed his work to a monk who had been present
at a lecture by Odo on the incarnation and had urged him to put it in writing. Odo
was finally persuaded to do so, but, before he wrote his book, he had a discussion
on the subject with a Jew. Consequently, it seemed appropriate to Odo to record
his remarks in the form of a dialogue. "Now, then, I invoke the Holy Spirit so that
whatever inspiration it gave me for the purpose of convincing a Jew it might give
me once again for the instruction of a faithful monk."26 Odo then described how
the Jew Leo visited him after his midday nap and initiated the discussion that he
recorded. Once again, the question of historicity can be postponed; the immediate
point is that Odo proffered no missionary intention at all and explicitly directed

22
Fulbert of Chartres, TractatuscontraJudaeos, PL 141: 308.
23
GislebertiCrispinidisputatioJudaeiet Christiani,ed. Bernhard Blumenkranz (Utrecht, 1956), 27-28.
The work is also in PL 159: 1005-36.
24 Pseudo-William of Champeaux, Dialogus inter Christianumet Judaeum de fide Catholica,PL 163:
1045. On the tone of this work, see Israel Levi, "Controverse entre unjuif et un Chretien au XIe siecle,"
Revue des EtudesJuives, 5 (1882): 244.
25 De fide Catholica contra haereticos,PL 210: 305-430, bk. 3, PL 210: 399-422. See my "Gilbert
Crispin, Alan of Lille, and Jacob ben Reuben: A Study in the Transmission of Medieval Polemic,"
Speculum, 49 (1974): 34-47; and M. H. Vicaire, "'Contra Judaeos' meridionaux au debut du XIIIe
siecle: Alain de Lille, Evrard de Bethune, Guillaume de Bourges," in M. H. Vicaire and B.
Blumenkranz, eds., Juifs et judaisme de Languedoc (Toulouse, 1977), 269-87.
26
Odo of Cambrai, Disputatio contraJudaeum, PL 160: 1103.
 Mission to theJews 583

his work to a Christian audience motivated by a desire to understand the

incarnation.
Guibert de Nogent's Tractatus on the incarnation contraJudaeos was actually
directed against a count of Soissons who, Guibert said, cultivated the views of Jews
and heretics. To Guibert, it was tolerable when someone who never accepted
Christianity rejected it; the Jews, after all, grew up with this attitude, implanted
in them since their forefathers crucifiedJesus. What was intolerable was for people
who called themselves Christians to attack the faith. To make matters worse, the
count dared to proclaim nefarious ideas that Jews themselves were afraid to utter
aloud. TheJews, in fact, considered him insane, because he extolled their sect while
ostensibly following Christianity.27 Although Guibert said that four years after
writing the book he used it to strengthen the faith of a Jewish convert, there are
no missionary overtones whatever in the reason he gave for its composition. The
Jews, in fact, are used almost as a foil for the real object of Guibert's attack, and
the implication is that he would not have written to expose the longstanding errors
of a tolerated Jewish community.
Even the three polemics by pre-thirteenth-century converts to Christianity do
not reflect the systematic missionary zeal that we might expect. The work by
"Samuel of Morocco," though it deals with some broader issues, is couched as an
explanation of the exile addressed to a Jew named Isaac, and it is hard to decide
whether the work is a polemic with a limited missionary purpose or an apologiapro
conversionesua.28 Petrus Alfonsi explicitly described the dialogue with his own
former Jewish persona as a reaction to attacks questioning the motives and
sincerity of his conversion,29 and the fascinating little book by Herman of Cologne
is an autobiographical account of his experiences on the road to conversion rather
than a true polemic.30
A final work that fits this pattern is essentially sui generis. Peter Abelard wrote
a dialogue involving a philosopher, a Christian, and a Jew in which the relevant
discussion takes place between the Jew and the philosopher, not between the Jew
and the Christian. The irenic tone as well as the structure make it improbable that
missionary zeal was Abelard's reason for writing.31
The overall impression gained from these works is not merely that they fail to
explicate a missionary intention. If the absence of proselytism were the only
common feature, one might assume that the motive to convert was so integral to
polemic that the authors took it for granted. lnstead, work after work presents
ideological reservations about mission, reluctance to engage in debate, defensive

27 Guibert de Nogent, Tractatusde IncarnationecontraJudaeos, PL 156: 489-90; and De vita sua, PL

156: 949-50.
28 The work of "Samuel of Morocco" may well be a pseudepigraph of the fourteenth century. See
M. Marsmann, Die Epistel desRabbiSamuel an RabbiIsaak: Untersuchungund Edition (Siegen, 1971). The
epistle also appears in PL 149: 337-68.
29 Petrus Alfonsi, Dialogus Petri, cognomentoAlphonsi, ex Judaeo Christiani, et MoysiJudaei, PL 157:
535-672, esp. 538.
30 Niemeyer, Hermannus quondamJudaeus opusculumde conversionesua.
31 Peter Abelard, Dialogus inter philosophum,iudaeum, et christianum,ed. Rudolf Thomas (Stuttgart,
1970), 44-85. Richard of St. Victor's De Emmanuele was directed against Andrew of St. Victor's
Judaizing commentary on Isa. 7:14 and is surely not a missionary tract. See PL 196: 601-66.
584 AHR Forum

explanations for writing polemical works, and justifications based on the need to
combat heresy and to instruct a Christian audience-all of which point to a striking
lack of interest in a missionary program. Either mission was a secondary motive
or not a motive at all or else these authors felt uncomfortable asserting it. In either
case, the ideology they expressed-at the very minimum-attached little impor-
tance to conversion of Jews.
There are, however, three twelfth-century works that contain signs of things to
come. The first, emerging from the school of Abelard, is known for its striking use
of Hebrew as a tool in the debate with Jews, but, in light of the objectives of earlier
polemics, the motive it suggests for disputation is at least equally interesting.
Sometime between 1139 and 1 148, an obscure cleric named Odo wrote the Ysagoge
in theologiam.In the introduction to the section on Jews, he made the following
assertion: "For if it is proper for us to exhort those who are fashioned in the faith
to live better, surely we should recall the Jews from their erroneous, disbelieving
sect."32If such an attitude were common, this would have been an utterly routine
sentence. The editor of the Ysagoge,for example, wrote that "the conversion of the
Jews was one of the great preoccupations of Christian intellectuals in the twelfth
and thirteenth centuries," and Odo was a participant in this movement.33 ln fact,
a statement like this before the middle of the twelfth century was not routine but
sharply polemical; it was a pointed a fortiori argument directed against the
then-dominant view of the upper clergy that efforts at conversion of Jews were
improper or unimportant.
The later attitude of aggressive mission to theJews is adumbrated with particular
clarity by Peter the Venerable. The reader of the prologue to his polemic finds
himself in a different, unfamiliar world. No hesitation here, and no apology. How
can Jews, he wrote, alone in all the world, deny Jesus? They are stiff-necked,
without celestial or terrestrial glory, but, if they convert, they, too, can be saved.34
Later in the work, Peter expressed doubts about his prospects for success. With
the arrogance and belligerence typical of this polemic, he noted that his arguments
from both authority and reason would satisfy any human being, but he was not
so sure that Jews, whose reason appeared "extinct" and "buried," could be called
human beings and not animals.35Whatever the tactical wisdom of his denunciatory
tone, and whether or not Peter ever had contact with his prospective converts,
there is in his work at least some expression of a hope of conversion.36
Finally, later in the century, we come to an author whom we might well expect
to find in any list of exceptional figures: Joachim of Fiore. Nevertheless, not all of
his discourse is exceptional. Joachim began with the familiar assertion that
response to the Jews is necessary because otherwise one gives occasion to the

de l'ecoled'Abelard(Louvain, 1934),
32 Ysagogein theologiam,ed. Arthur M. Landgraf, Ecritstheologiques

126-27. Also see Avrom Saltman, "Ha-Ysagoge shel Odo-Shitah Ijadashah Ba-Pulmus Ha-Anti-
Yehudi," BiqqoretU-Parshanut, 13-14 (1979): 265-80.
33 Ecrits theologiques,xlvii.
34 Peter the Venerable, TractatusadversusJudaeoruminveteratamduritiem,PL 189: 507-09.
35 Ibid.,602.
36 It may be more than coincidence that both Odo and Peter, who were interested in genuine mission,
used tools borrowed from the Jewish armory-in the first case linguistic and in the second talmudic.
 Mission to theJews 585

enemies of Christ to insult the faith and confuse the simple believer. He went on,
however, to a consideration peculiar to his own well-known speculations about the
imminence of a new age. An additional reason for the work, he said, was his feeling
that the Jews would soon experience the divine mercy as the time of their
consolation and conversion arrived.37 At that time, all Jews would convert.
Joachim, however, wanted some to see the light just before the period of general
salvation, and he broke into prophetic exhortation: "And now, Ojewish men, hear
my voice this day, and do not persist in hardening your heart."38
These exceptions are few in number, and there is less to them than meets the
eye. The relevant section of the Ysagogein theologiamis a manifestly atypical work
by an insignificant author, and Joachim of Fiore is a profoundly idiosyncratic
figure whose position on Jewish conversion flows precisely from his most
important idiosyncracy. As for Peter the Venerable, his bitter pessimism about the
prospects of persuading the Jews drastically tempers the impression of missionary
zeal that his remarks may create, and the Tractatusremains far more a work of
denunciation than of mission.
In the thirteenth century, sentiments for proselytism continued to grow, and
ultimately they prevailed. Peter of Cornwall's disputation, completed in 1208,
describes at great length his successful effort to convert a Jewish acquaintance,
although, as in the reworking of Crispin's polemic, the object of this effort is a
single individual.39 In the 1230s, William of Bourges wrote that, shortly after his
conversion to Christianity, he was urged to use his knowledge of Hebrew to
compose a work to refute the Jews. After all, Jesus himself fought against both
Sadducee heretics and other Jews, and, if Christians truly love him, they should
do battle against his enemies. Ominously, William's proof text is "Shall I not hate
those who hate you, 0 Lord?" (Ps. 139:21).40 Whether the motivation was hate or
love, by the mid-thirteenth century a Christian campaign to convert the Jews was
gathering momentum,4' and the theoretical desirability of such a program was not
again seriously questioned until modern times.

THE POLEMICAL WORKS THAT I HAVE EXAMINED do more than reveal the absence of
a missionary ideology; they also make assertions about frequent discussions
between Jews and Christians at and especially below the level of the upper clergy.
Such information, if authentic, is of extraordinary historical value. Assessing
authenticity is, of course, no easy task. We are dealing in many of these instances
with a literary genre of fictitious debate, which led one scholar to regard virtually

37 Joachim of Fiore, AdversusJudaeosdi Gioacchinoda Fiore, ed. Arsenio Frugoni (Rome, 1957), 3.
38 Ibid., 85-89. The points in this paragraph were made by Frugoni in the introduction to his edition

(pp. xxxii-xxxvii). I hesitate to include Hildebert of Lavardin's short sermon "Against the Jews
Concerning the Incarnation" among these exceptional polemics, despite its apostrophe to the Jews
urging their conversion. The entire work is a few paragraphs long, was delivered to a Christian
audience, and merely lists a handful of the standard verses on the incarnation with virtually no
argumentation. See PL 171: 811-14.
9 The prologue to Peter's Liber disputationumcontra SymonemIudeum was published by Hunt;
"Disputation of Peter of Cornwall," 153-56.
40 Guillaume de Bourges, Livre des guerresdu Seigneur, ed. Gilbert Dahan (Paris, 1981), 66, 68.
41 Cohen, The Friars and theJews.
586 AHR Forum

all of the major polemics besides Crispin's as possessing "no historical interest."42
There are, however, ways of evaluating this evidence.
First, the requests for polemical material were genuine. It would require a
perverse level of skepticism to assume that Adam of Perseigne invented a request
so that he could explain why he turned it down. Peter Damian's entire personal
history and psychology indicate that he was sincere in asserting that one should
concentrate on battling the vices of the flesh and that his reluctant agreement to
enter the lists against the Jews resulted from a letter of request.43 In Rupert's case,
a somewhat later request from his correspondent exists. One cannot be certain
about Peter of Blois, but the evidence in the other cases places the burden of proof
on the skeptic. It appears that the lower clergy, precisely because of greater contact
with the outside world, felt a need for works that would assist them in the religious
discussions that were apparently a common feature of everyday life.
The evidence, moreover, does not allow the assumption that these discussions
were necessarily initiated by proselytizing Christians. The assertions of Jewish
aggressiveness in the works of Peter of Blois and Walter of Chatillon and in the
anonymous Tractatus may be exaggerated, but they would constitute silly, almost
self-defeating bombast if they did not have some basis in reality.44 Furthermore,
the testimony in these polemics is borne out to a striking extent by thirteenth-
century Jewish works. Whether Jews or Christians initiated these exchanges, the
indications are overwhelming that they were real and frequent. The nature of
some of the arguments as well as circumstantial evidence support this conclusion.
The most detailed account of a Jewish-Christian debate in a Christian work is
that of Herman of Cologne. Here aJewish youth in early twelfth-century Germany
listens to a Christian sermon that describes Jews as animals who understand only
the letter of the law, in contrast to Christians, who are human beings who use
reason to understand the spirit of the law.45 He is directly exhorted to give up the
heavy yoke of the Mosaic law and take up instead the easy burden offered by Jesus
(Matt. 11:30),46 and at one point he initiates a conversation with no less a figure
than Rupert of Deutz himself.47 Local churchmen provide him with books, and
he maintains that he succeeded in teaching himself Latin so that he could read

42 Levi, "Controverse," 239.

43 See my discussion in "St. Peter Damian," 83.
44 The remarks by Peter and the author of the Tractatuswere noted by Levi, and many historians

have cited Louis IX's comment that a Christian layman approached by a Jewish polemicist should
respond by stabbing him. See Levi, "Controverse," 238. Also see my brief discussion in The
Jewish-ChristianDebate, 22-23. Compare the somewhat weaker impression given by Peter Damian that
Honestus was confronted by a Jewish challenge, and see Bartholomew of Exeter's comments cited in
note 18, above. Guibert's remark that the Jews hardly dared whisper what the count of Soissons said
aloud does reflect some Jewish caution, but it must also be read in light of Guibert's strategy to use the
Jews as a foil for the heretical count.
45 Niemeyer, Hermannusquondam Judaeus opusculumde conversionesua, 74. This image appears in the
work of Walter of Chatillon and, more clearly, in the polemic of Peter the Venerable. Also see my "The
Attitude of St. Bernard of Clairvaux toward the Jews," Proceedingsof the AmericanAcademyfor Jewish
Research, 40 (1972): 103.
46 Niemeyer, Hermannus quondamJudaeus opusculumde conversionesua, 75. Such an argument by
Christian missionaries may have partially inspired and surely lent force to the Jewish contention that
conversion to Christianity proved nothing more than the convert's desire to experience the pleasures
of the flesh; Nizza4on vetus, in TheJewish-ChristianDebate, 20, and, in the Hebrew section, 144.
4 Niemeyer, Hermannus quondamJudaeus opusculumde conversionesua, 77-83.
 Mission to theJews 587

them.48 Nevertheless, he insists that what really clinched his decision to convert was
his observation of the prayerful devotion of simple nuns.49 The strong impression
that emerges from his work is not that of an intellectual poring over sophisticated
tracts or even disputing with people like Rupert; rather, we see a Jew who
maintains regular, intimate contacts with ordinary Christians and lower clergy and
who is eventually won over to the dominant religion by an accumulation of such
experiences. Although Herman reported that a Jew chastised him for excessive
association with Christians,50 the impression of frequent religious discussions
between ordinary Jews and Christians is by no means negated by the undeniable
fact that Herman went too far. The atmosphere of the memoir is compelling.
The reality of such contacts emerges from a number of other Christian works
as well. Rudolph of St. Trond, the abbot who requested Rupert of Deutz to write
his polemic, is reported to have "frequently held mild discussions withJews without
disputation or reproach; rather, he softened the hardness of their heart by
stroking and massage.... For this reason they loved him so much that even their
women came to see him and speak with him."5' The general tone and content of
Crispin's disputation has convinced most scholars of its essential authenticity as a
work arising out of friendly, informal meetings between the author and a Jewish
acquaintance.52 Odo of Cambrai's assertion that he had an unplanned discussion
with a Jew is highly plausible because he has another explicit motive for writing
his work: the addressee, as we recall, had requested that he record his lecture on
the incarnation.
Moreover, Odo's polemic ends with a fascinating sentence that suggests not only
the reality of such discussions but also their context. "These . . . are the reasons
that I gave the Jew concerning the coming of Christ, having been forced to dispute
all the more subtly by certain Christians who took the part of the Jew."53Thus, as
in Crispin's case, there was an audience, and here some Christians attending were
prepared to challenge the arguments of the Christian protagonist. Even if these
Christians were advocates of an explanation of the incarnation that differed from
Odo's, such intervention would be inconceivable in a debate whose serious goal was
the conversion of the Jew. These confrontations were ultimately very serious
indeed, but the atmosphere appears to have been one of a duel of wits-almost
a form of intellectual entertainment.

48 Ibid., 76.
49 Ibid., 107-08.
50 Ibid.,93.
51 Gesta abbatum Trudonensium,quoted by Niemeyer, in his introduction to Hermannus quondam
Judaeus opusculumde conversionesua, 5 n. 3.
52
In composing such a work, an author naturally expands and "improves" the discussion; hence,
certain implausibilities in the exchange do not in themselves undermine the likelihood of an encounter,
and even R. J. Zvi Werblowsky, who expressed serious reservations about the recorded disputation,
did not doubt Crispin's statement that he held amicable discussions about religion with a Jewish
acquaintance. See Werblowsky, "Crispin's Disputation,"Journal of Jewish Studies, 11 (1960): 73. The
reworking of Crispin presents a fictitious exchange, and I would therefore treat it more cautiously than
did Aryeh Grabois, who said that the work "clearly attests" frequent, informal meetings among
intellectuals. Nevertheless, the author's assertion that he had such discussions, even though it too is
borrowed from Crispin, presumably reflects a milieu in which such a report would sound plausible.
See Grabois, "The Hebraica veritas,"634.
53 Odo of Cambrai, Disputatio contraJudaeum, PL 160: 1112.
588 AHR Forum

Guibert's polemic, which does not reflect a real confrontation, ends with a
miracle story also pertinent to this discussion. He heard an account of a disputation
in a home (in quadamdomo)in which a cleric was unable to contest the perfidious
bombast of a Jew, so the cleric offered to hold the burning part of a firebrand in
order to prove his position. TheJew made no effort to dissuade him, and the cleric
grabbed hold of the flame and did not burn. The Jew marveled but was
nonetheless not impelled to convert.54 The miracle here is not especially mirac-
ulous, and the story could be true. Even if it is not, however, it suggests that such
discussions were routine.
Finally, both Peter of Blois and the author of the anonymous Tractatusproffered
practical advice on pinning down the slippery and elusive Jewish disputant, who
was likely to change the subject whenever he encountered difficulty.55 Once again,
works that do not record actual disputations suggest that Jews and Christians
expected to confront one another in the field of religious combat.
Thus far, I have examined only Christian works, but the impression created by
those works is confirmed by Jewish polemics as well. This literature does not begin
until the late twelfth century, and one of the earliest works, authored by the
southern French polemicist Jacob ben Reuben, reports an encounter whose
essential historicity has never been questioned.56 The tone is cordial, the
arguments rigorous, and the agenda-which includes a discussion of the book of
Matthew-unusually broad. In the thirteenth century, Meir of Narbonne re-
corded what were surely genuine exchanges with influential Christians on sensitive
questions,57 and Moses of Salerno described philosophical discussions of unusual
sophistication with Italian churchmen.58 These were not formal disputations of the
sort that were held in Paris and Barcelona; Jacob, Meir, and Moses described what
were for the most part informal discussions that took place in the course of
everyday life.59
Finally, there is fascinating and somewhat problematical evidence from north-
ern Ashkenaz in Joseph Official's Sefer YosefHaMeqanne60and the anonymous
Nizzahon vetus.61On the one hand, the sharpness of some of the exchanges in these

5" Guibert de Nogent, Tractatusde IncarnationecontraJudaeos,PL 156: 528. For an eleventh-century

proposal to prove Christianity through ordeal by fire to an audience of similarly unimpressed Muslims,
see Kedar, Crusadeand Mission, 45.
5 Peter of Blois, ContraperfidiamJudaeorum,PL 207: 870; and TractatusadversusJudaeum, PL 213:
749.
56 Milhamot HaShem, ed. Judah Rosenthal (Jerusalem, 1963), esp. xxii, 4-5.
5 MilhemetMizvah, Biblioteca Palatina Parma, MS. 2749. A substantial part of the manuscript was
transcribed by William Herskowitz. See Herskowitz, "Judaeo-Christian Disputation in Provence as
Reflected in Milbemet Mitzva of R. Meir HaMeili" (D.H.L. dissertation, Bernard Revel Graduate
School, Yeshiva University, 1974). On Meir's work, see Siegfried Stein,Jew&sh-Chr'stian Disputationsin
Thirteenth-CenturyNarbonne (London, 1969). Also see the studies by Robert Chazan in Harvard
TheologicalReview,67 (1974): 437-57; HebrewUnion CollegeAnnual,45 (1974): 287-305; and Proceedings
of the AmericanAcademyforJewish Research,41-42 (1973-74): 45-67.
58 Ta'anot,in Stanislaus Simon, Mose benSalomovon Salernound seinephilosophischen Auseinandersetzung
mit den Lehrendes Christentums(Breslau, 1931).
59 It is worth noting that in the Barcelona disputation of 1263, Nabmanides commented that "there
is not a single priest or child" who does not ask theJews about Ps. 110. See KitveiRamban,ed. C. Chavel
(Jerusalem, 1963), vol. 1, p. 317.
60
Joseph Official, Sefer YosefHaMeqanne, ed. Judah Rosenthal (Jerusalem, 1970).
61
See The Jewish-ChristianDebate. The Nizzahon vetus was also edited by Mordechai Breuer; Sefer
Nizzahon Yashan (Uerusalem, 1978).
 Mission to theJews 589

works invites skepticism about their authenticity. Once again, however, the
atmosphere of constant interaction is compelling, and it is almost inconceivable
that these accounts are not essentially authentic. Most of the arguments are
introduced by phrases like "a certain cordelier"or "a certain apostate asked."
Specific priests are identified by their towns, and arguments are placed in specific
settings.
Moreover, the aggressiveness of the tone of both works makes it difficult to reject
Christian assertions that Jews often initiated debate. It is true that one of the most
distin,guished students of this literature has urged us to differentiate between
"audacity in confronting Christianity" and the initiation of disputation,62 and in
some instances this is a useful caveat. But the assertiveness of the Ashkenazic
polemics must undercut skepticism about the validity of Christian reports
concerning Jewish initiatives. Jews who urged their readers to tell Christians that
Jacob sat on a cross,63 who reported (falsely or not) that a Jew urinated on a cross
in the presence of a churchman and then produced a clever justification,64 who
clearly suggested to their readers that they raise embarrassing questions with
Christians65-Jews who said such things and more cannot be assumed a priori to
have shrunk from initiating religious discussions with Christian acquaintances.
Even if the authors-despite the plain meaning of their exhortations-expected
discretion from theirJewish readers, all readers would not have obliged. In short,
the existence of such polemics practically guarantees that Jews who took them
literally would act on their advice, and, while the worst excesses of these works may
never have been translated into practice, it is hard to deny that a number of readers
would have been impelled to challenge Christians to defend their faith. There
were, of course, cautious Jews,66 but bold, even reckless, disputants, especially in
northern France and Germany, appear to have constituted far more than a lunatic
fringe.
Even Jewish familiarity with Christian books often resulted from these discus-
sions since the access ofJews to such works normally came through Christians who
owned them. Herman of Cologne was given Latin books, and Jacob ben Reuben
said that his Christian friend gave him a work that apparently was-at least in
part-a polemical anthology.67 Although sections of someJewish polemics appear
to have been composed to refute written Christian exegesis,68 most of the points
were debated in lively and frequent discussions.
62 Frank Talmage, Commentary,June 1975, p. 23.
63
This is a delicate paraphrase of the original. See Nzzmahonvetus, in Thejewish-ChristianDebate, 59,
and, in the Hebrew section, 20.
64
Joseph Official, Sefer YosefHaMeqanne, 14. There is some ambiguity in the story as to whether the
Jew was aware that the Christian would see him.
65 See TheJewish-ChristianDebate, sects. 156, 161, 188, 206, 210, 229.
66
The most striking example of a cautious polemicist is Solomon de' Rossi. See Frank Talmage,
"Christianity and the Jewish People," in his Disputation and Dialogue (New York, 1975), 240. Here
Solomon's position is presented as more or less typical. Also see TheJewish-ChristianDebate,21-22, and
n. 55. In addition, it should be kept in mind that the greatest figures of medieval Jewry, at least in the
period with which we are concerned, did not write polemical works. (Nabmanides' coerced involvement
in Barcelona is, of course, not germane to the present discussion.)
67 See my discussion in Speculum, 49 (1974): 36-37, 46-47.
68 When Jewish works, for example, refute Christological interpretations that are found only in

Christian commentaries and not in polemics, we have reason to suspect that the Jewish authors got the
information from a literary source, and a systematic investigation along these lines may well prove
rewarding. For a clear-cut passage of this sort, note the probably interpolated section in the Munich
manuscript of the Nizzahon vetus on Psalms, with its explicit references to Christian translations and to
590 AHR Forum

It is difficult to characterize with precision the current state of scholarship on

this question. Some skepticism remains about Jewish initiation of debate.69 But
scholars who have concentrated on the northern Ashkenazic polemics have found
it difficult to discount an impression of authenticity, whatever the degree of their
reservations on matters of detail,70 and this impression is consistent with the
general picture reflected in other Jewish sources from Northern Europe.7'
Students of Christian polemic in the High Middle Ages have remarked very briefly
on the existence of a genuine Jewish challenge,72 and here, too, the study of
nonpolemical Christian sources confirms the impression of significant interac-
tion.73 My review of polemic-despite the limitations and inevitably skewed
emphasis of the genre-underscores that debate was a central phenomenon in the
social and intellectual life of medieval Ashkenazic Jewry. While evidence of
extensive debate decidedly does not demonstrate that other developments in the
cultural history of Ashkenazic Jews were influenced by Jewish-Christian contacts
(particularly since the greatest rabbis were not polemicists), the instinctive
resistance that many historians still feel when such assertions are made should be
diminished.
One more important point. Jewish aggressiveness and even Jewish initiative do
not constitute a Jewish mission. There is no indication that Jews engaged in
religious discussions with Christians with the realistic expectation of converting

the glossa and its concentration on exegesis that no sensible Christian polemicist would have
emphasized. See Thejewish-ChristianDebate, sects. 131-41. The extent to which Jews could have read
Latin works depends, of course, on their knowledge of Latin, and, although almost all of the authors
of polemical works surely read Latin, we cannot be certain about other Jewish intellectuals. For an
argument that the Paris disputation of 1240 was conducted in Latin, see Ch. Merchavia, HaTalmud
BiRe'i HaNazrut (Jerusalem, 1970), 245. Grabois's assertion that "Rashi attested that he studied
Christian biblical exegesis" is much too strong. Of the two authorities that Grabois noted, Y. Baer
presented very little evidence for his assertion that "we may assume that Rashi knew Latin and read
widely in Christian works," and E. Shereshevsky explicitly conceded that there is no definitive evidence
that Rashi read Latin. See Grabois, "The Hebraicaveritas,"632; Baer, "Rashi VeHaMeziut HaHistorit
shel Zemanno," Tarbiz,20 (1950): 326; and Shereshevsky, "Rashi and Christian Interpretations,"Jewish
QuarterlyReview, 61 (1970-71): 76-86.
69 Talmage, Disputation and Dialogue, 240; and Commentary, June 1975, p. 23.
70
Zadoc Kahn, "Le livre de Joseph le Zelateur," Revue des EtudesJuives, 1 (1880): 222-46; and 3
(1881): 1-38, esp. 34; Ephraim Urbach, "Etudes sur la litterature polemique au moyen age," Revue des
EtudesJuives, 100 (1935): 50-77, esp. 60-64; and Mordechai Breuer, SeferNizzahon Yashan,20-21. Also
see my discussion in TheJewish-ChristianDebate, 20-23.
71 See, especially,Jacob Katz, Exclusivenessand Tolerance(New York, 1960), 98-100. Also see Grabois,

"The Hebraia veritas." For a vigorous argument, based primarily on Jewish exegetical material, for
Jewish-Christian intellectual contacts, see Elazar Touitou, "Shitato HaParshanit shel HaRashbam al
Reqa HaMeziut HaHistorit shel Zemanno," in Y. D. Gilat et al., eds., IyyunimBeSifrut HIazalBaMiqra
U-veToldot Yisrael:MuqdashLiProf. Ezra Zion Melamed (Ramat Gan, 1982), 48-74.
72 Peter Browe assessed the situation particularly well. See Browe, Diejudenmission im Mittelalterund
die Papste (Rome, 1942), 113, 60-64. Also see Hunt, "Disputation of Peter of Cornwall," 147; and
Dahan, Livre desguerresdu Seigneur, 33-34. Blumenkranz's discussion of "la mission juive" deals mainly
with an earlier period; Juifs et Chretiens, 159-211. As I noted, Blumenkranz ascribed a significant
missionary motivation to Christian polemic in his period. Elsewhere, however, he argued that the extent
of what he described as Christian defense literature demonstrates that Jews must have pursued
missionary activity;Juifs et Chretiens,209. In light of his position on the missionary objectives of Christian
polemic, this last argument is almost puzzling, and the book, which remains of the first importance,
tends to overstate the missionary intentions on both sides.
71 See Grabois, "The Hebraica veritas."Polemical sources are dealt with only in the two concluding

paragraphs; ibid., 633-34, esp. 624.

 Mission to theJews 591

them. Both the Talmud and the status of medieval Jewry militated against such
a program, and the occasional evidence of Christian converts to Judaism does not
begin to demonstrate a concerted Jewish effort to attract proselytes.74 Jews
challenged Christians as an expression of pride-to raise their own morale and to
discomfit their opponents. Joseph Official wrote "to reveal the shame" of Jewish
apostates.75 The author of the Nizzahon vetus completed his advice to polemicists
by promising that "then you will find the Gentile thoroughly embarrassed; indeed,
he will be found to have denied [Christianity's]central dogmas, while all Israel 'will
speak lovely words' (Gen. 49:2 1)."76 A chastened Gentile with an enhanced respect
for Jews and Judaism-but a Gentile nonetheless.

THE ABSENCE OF A CHRISTIAN MISSIONARY ideology and the presence of frequent

Jewish-Christian confrontations establish the likelihood that eleventh- and twelfth-
century Christians wrote polemics not out of missionary objectives but largely in
response to requests generated by a genuine Jewish challenge. There is, however,
a more profound relationship between the disinterest of the upper clergy before
the thirteenth century in convertingJews and the existence of lively, regular, often
friendly debates betweenJews and Christians, which were sometimes begun by the
Jewish participant. The tone of these informal contacts and the Jewish willingness
to initiate them were possible precisely because the church was not yet deadly
serious about the aim of conversion. For Jews, the enjoyment was drained out of
these contests in the face of a concerted, formalized Christian mission, and it
became foolhardy and dangerous to seek confrontation. During the course of the
thirteenth century, the gradual transformation in the Christian position was not
immediately reflected in Jewish behavior, and, even later, the spirit never
completely departed from Jewish polemicists. Nevertheless, by the late Middle
Ages the tone is profoundly different; one begins to see the defensiveness,
nervousness, and demoralization of a worried community. Jewish polemic was
never the same again.77

74 Wolfgang Giese's vehement argument for "intensive Jewish propaganda and missionary activity"
is based solely on the existence of Christian converts toJudaism and the efforts made in church councils
to limit contacts between Jews and Christians because of the Jews' corrupting influence. See his "In
ludaismum lapsus est: Judische Proselytenmacherei im fruhen und hohen Mittelalter (600-1300),"
HistorischesJahrbuch,88 (1968): 407-18. Also see Baron's remark that "medieval Jews had long given
up any missionary aspirations"; A Social and Religious History, 23.
75 Joseph Official, Sefer YosefHaMeqanne, 15. See Hos. 2:2.
76 TheJewish-ChristianDebate, 169, and, in the Hebrew section, 108.
77 The changes in Jewish polemic do not, of course, result solely from increased Christian

proselytizing and persecution. Most late medieval Jewish polemic comes from Spanish Jewry rather
than from areas where Jewish aggressiveness is most clearly attested in the earlier period. For the
decline in polemic and the growing isolationism in the Ashkenazic orbit in the fifteenth, sixteenth, and
seventeenth centuries, see Katz, Exclusivenessand Tolerance,chaps. 11, 12. On Spain, see the striking
personal testimony of an obscure participant in the Tortosa disputation; Frank Talmage, "Trauma at
Tortosa: The Testimony of Abraham Rimoch," MedievalStudies,47 (1985): 397. I am grateful to Moshe
Idel for bringing this last reference to my attention.