This paper offers a critical analysis of the institutional and epistemic conditions under which Jewish Theology has been established as a scientific discipline within the German public university system, focusing on the case of the School of Jewish Theology (SJT) at the University of Potsdam. Drawing on concepts from philosophy of science, sociology of knowledge, and political philosophy, the paper examines how confessional authority, academic governance, and public legitimation interact in the contemporary German context. The analysis challenges triumphalist narratives surrounding the institutional success of Jewish Theology by reconstructing the historical, legal, and organizational structures that shape the SJT, with particular attention to the role of the Allgemeine Rabbinerkonferenz (ARK), the Studienkommission, and the cooperation agreements between religious and state actors. Rather than adjudicating personal controversies, the paper treats public disputes as analytically relevant data for understanding the governance of knowledge in confessional academic settings. The paper contributes to broader debates about academic legitimacy, secularization, and the place of confessional disciplines within democratic systems of public knowledge. Legal and methodological disclaimer: This preprint is a work of academic scholarship concerned with institutional governance, legal frameworks, and processes of epistemic legitimation in publicly funded higher education. It does not purport to determine, verify, or adjudicate the truth of any factual allegations concerning identifiable individuals that may have appeared in third-party sources, including media reports, institutional communications, or investigative documents. Where such materials are referenced, they are treated solely as elements of the public record and as data for analyzing the governance implications of public controversy and institutional decision-making. No assertion of factual guilt, wrongdoing, intent, or character is made or implied with respect to any person. All evaluative claims in this paper are directed at institutional structures, governance arrangements, and normative frameworks, and are offered as scholarly opinion and fair comment in the public interest. Nothing in this work should be construed as a statement of fact about any individual beyond what is explicitly attributed to identified sources and dates. The author expressly disclaims any intention to allege or imply criminal, civil, professional, or moral culpability. Any errors or misinterpretations are inadvertent; the author welcomes notice of inaccuracies and will correct them in subsequent versions.