Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-jwnkl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-15T19:20:36.412Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Jews as the Killers of Christ in the Latin Tradition, from Augustine to the Friars

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2016

Jeremy Cohen*
Ohio State University, Columbus


The noted Anglo-Jewish historian Cecil Roth, in a seldom quoted but highly provocative essay, argued some forty years ago that medieval European Christendom conceived of the Jew not as an infidel who had failed to perceive the truth of Christianity but rather as a deliberate unbeliever, one who knew the truth but refused to accept its consequences. Only if the Jews of first-century Palestine had recognized Jesus as their redeemer, Roth claimed, could medieval churchmen have sought proof for Christian beliefs in the Talmud and Midrash; and only a people deemed willfully evil could have been charged with the unnatural atrocities that medieval Europeans attributed to the Jews: host-desecration, well-poisoning, and ritual murder. To be sure, cautioned Roth, not all medieval Christians could have viewed the Jews in precisely this way. Popes and emperors often expended considerable energy to controvert such popular opinion. ‘But it must have been a very widespread conception, particularly among the less educated; and it explains a good deal in the medieval religious mentality which otherwise remains incomprehensible.’

Copyright © Fordham University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


1 Roth, Cecil, ‘The Medieval Conception of the Jew,’ in Essays and Studies in Memory of Linda R. Miller, ed. Israel Davidson (New York 1938) 171–90 at 176.Google Scholar

2 The Friars and the Jews: The Evolution of Medieval Anti-Judaism (Ithaca 1982). The single exception which manifests such a Christian view of the Jews before the thirteenth century is the medieval charge of ritual murder, which first was raised in twelfth-century England. Yet as elaborated by Thomas of Monmouth, The Life and Miracles of St. William of Norwich, edd. Augustus Jessop and Montague Rhodes James (Cambridge 1896) 21, 93–94, this earlier allegation of ‘ritual murder’ (as distinct from the thirteenth-century blood libel) stemmed from the claim that the Jews habitually and deliberately re-enacted the crucifixion of Christ. As such, the accusation reflects the growing interest of the twelfth century in the role of the Jews as Christ-killers (infra section 3) without depending on an anti-Jewish ideology such as that of the friars (infra section 5). Cf. Roth, ‘The Medieval Conception’ 183ff., and Joshua Trachtenberg, The Devil and the Jews: The Medieval Conception of the Jew and its Relation to Modern Antisemitism (New Haven 1943) 124–55.Google Scholar

3 Owing to the concentration of this study on high medieval exegesis and theology, I have followed the text of the Paris Vulgate in PL 29.Google Scholar

4 See, for example, the citations by Bernhard Blumenkranz in his studies of Die Judenpredigt Augustins: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der jüdisch-christlichen Beziehungen in den ersten Jahrhunderten (Basel 1946) 163 nn. 4–5, and ‘Altercatio Aecclesie contra Synagogam: Texte inédit du xe siècle,’ Revue du moyen ǎge latin 10 (1954) 131–32.Google Scholar

5 They maintained either that Jesus had committed crimes deserving of capital punishment or that, if (for the sake of argument) one agrees to view the Passion as ordained by God to lead to the world's salvation, crucifying Jesus was a praiseworthy act. See, for instance, Samuel Krauss, ed., Das Leben Jesu nach jüdischen Quellen (Berlin 1902) passim, and David Berger, ed., The Jewish-Christian Debate of the High Middle Ages: A Critical Edition of the Niẓẓaḥhon Vetus (Philadelphia 1979), Heb. 36, 83 (= Eng. 77, 136); and see the study of William Horbury, ‘The Trial of Jesus in Jewish Tradition,’ in The Trial of Jesus: Cambridge Studies in Honour of C. F. D. Moule, ed. Ernst Bammel (Naperville 1970) 103–21.Google Scholar

6 Oesterreicher, John M., ‘Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions,’ in Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, ed. Herbert Vorgrimler, trans. William Glen-Doepel et al. (New York 1967–69) 3.33–34, 80, 107, 113–14, 117–22; Charlotte Klein, Anti-Judaism in Christian Theology, trans. Edward Quinn (Philadelphia 1977) 92126.Google Scholar

7 Matthew 17.12, for example, simply evoked the question of how Jesus forecast his own death at the hands of those who killed John the Baptist, if the latter was executed by Herod (Antipas) and Herodias, and not by the Jews. See the commentaries on Matthew of Jerome (CCL 77.151), Rabanus Maurus (PL 107.1001), pseudo-Bede (PL 92.82), Paschasius Radbertus (PL 120.590–91), Anselm of Laon (PL 162.1402), the Glossa ordidinaria (in Biblia sacra cum glossis, interlineari, et ordinaria, Nicolai Lyrani postilla, ac mortalitatibus, Burgensis additionibus, et Thoringi replicis, etc., 6 vols. [Venice 1588] 5.84e, 180f), Hugh of St. Cher (in his Opera omnia in universum Vetus et Novum Testamentum, 8 vols. [London 1669] 6.60r), Thomas Aquinas (ed. Raphael Cai [Turin 1951] 221), and Nicholas of Lyra Biblia sacra 5.54g).Google Scholar

8 Faith and Fratricide: The Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism (New York 1974) 64116. Although Ruether's contention of the endemic nature of anti-Judaism in the most fundamental tenets of Christian theology has understandably aroused the dissatisfaction of various reviewers, no substantive attack on her historical understanding of the Gospels’ treatment of the Jews has, to my knowledge, appeared in print. Cf. the criticisms of Thomas A. Idinopulos and Roy Bowen Ward, ‘Is Christology Inherently Anti-Semitic? A Critical Review of Rosemary Ruether's Faith and Fratricide,’ Journal of the American Academy of Religion 45 (1977) 193–214, and the review by Robert L. Wilken, Anglican Theological Review 59 (1977) 354–56.Google Scholar

9 See, among many others, Gaston, Lloyd, No Stone on Another: Studies in the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels , Supplements to Novum Testamentum 23 (Leiden 1970) passim; Sjef van Tilborg, The Jewish Leaders in Matthew (Leiden 1972) 97–98, 160ff., Michael J. Cook, Mark's Treatment of the Jewish Leaders, Supplements to Novum Testamentum 51 (Leiden 1978) 5–7, 16ff., 79; J. A. T. Robinson, ‘The Destination and Purpose of St. John's Gospel,’ New Testament Studies 6 (1960) 117–31; the rejoinder of J. W. Bowker, ‘The Origin and Purpose of St. John's Gospel,’ ibid. 11 (1965) 398–408; and J. Duncan M. Derrett, An Oriental Lawyer Looks at the Trial of Jesus and the Doctrine of Redemption (London 1966) 16–23, 34–38. This interpretation of Birkat ha-Minim has been argued most forcefully by W. D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge 1966) 272–86; and it has been challenged most recently by Asher Finkel, ‘Yavneh's Liturgy and Early Christianity,’ Journal of Ecumenical Studies 18 (1981) 231–50. On the influence of Rome's Christian policy on accounts of Jesus’ death see especially Paul Winter, On the Trial of Jesus, 2nd ed., edd. T. A. Burkill and Geza Vermes (Berlin 1974) 77–89.Google Scholar

10 See Gaston, , No Stone 330–31, and Tilborg, The Jewish Leaders 169.Google Scholar

11 Fischel, Henry A., ‘Martyr and Prophet (A Study in Jewish Literature), Jewish Quarterly Review ns 37 (1947) 265–80, 363–86; Hans Joachim Schoeps, ‘Die jüdischen Prophetenmorde,’ in his Aus frühchristlicher Zeit: Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen (Tübingen 1950) 126–43; Odil Hannes Steck, Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten: Untersuchungen zur Überlieferung des deuteronomischen Geschichtsbildes im Alten Testament, Spätjudentum und Urchristentum (Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 23; Neukirchen–Vluyn 1967); Tilborg, The Jewish Leaders 46ff.Google Scholar

12 Dodd, C. H., The Parables of the Kingdom , rev. ed. (New York 1961) 96102; Joachim Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, rev. ed., trans. S. H. Hooke (New York 1963) 72–76.Google Scholar

13 Georg Kümmel, Werner, ‘Das Gleichnis von den bösen Weingärtnern (Mark. 12.1–9),’ in Aux sources de la tradition chrétienne: Mélanges offerts à Maurice Goguel (Neuchǎtel 1950) 120–31; Rudolf Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, rev. ed., trans. John Marsh (New York 1968) 177–205; Wofgang Trilling, Das wahre Israel: Studien zur Theologie des Matthäus-Evangeliums (Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 10; Munich 1964) 55–65; Franz Mussner, ‘Die bösen Winzer nach Matthäus 21, 33–46,’ in Antijudaismus im Neuen Testament?, edd. Willehad Paul Eckert et al. (Abhandlungen zum christlich-jüdischen Dialog 2; Munich 1967) 129–34; Steck, Israel 269–73, 297–99; Gaston, No Stone 476. For the most explicit de-emphasis of the element of deicide in the parable, see above all B. M. F. van Iersel, ‘Der Sohn’ in den synoptischen Jesuworten: Christusbezeichnung der Gemeinde oder Selbstbezeichnung Jesu?, Supplements to Novum Testamentum 3 (Leiden 1961) 144–45; and J. D. M. Derrett, ‘Fresh Light on the Parable of the Wicked Vinedressers,’ Revue internationale des droits de l'antiquité, 3rd ser. 10 (1963) 37–39.Google Scholar

14 See, for example, Dodd, C. H., The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge 1953) 256, 413–14; R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, trans. G. R. Beasley Murray et al. (Philadelphia 1971) 339–41, 550–51; and Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, trans. Kevin Smyth et al. (London 1968–80) 2.256, 366, 481.Google Scholar

15 On the dramatic structure of John and his portrayal of such aspects of Jesus’ life as a reflection of the circumstances of the Church in the following generations, see Erich Grässer, ‘Die anti-jüdische Polemik im Johannesevangelium,’ New Testament Studies 11 (1964) 7490; Oscar Cullmann, The Johannine Circle: Its Place in Judaism, among the Disciples of Jesus, and in Early Christianity, trans. John Bowden (London 1976) 12–19; and J. Louis Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel, 2nd ed. (Nashville 1979).Google Scholar

16 Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam 1.6 (CCL 14.9). On the conflict between Theodosius and Ambrose over the Synagogue at Callinicum, and on Ambrose's anti-Jewish polemic in general, see F. Barth, ‘Ambrosius und die Synagoge zu Callinicum,’ Theologische Zeitschrift aus der Schweiz 6 (1889) 6586; and Gregory Figueroa, The Church and the Synagogue in St. Ambrose (Catholic University of America Studies in Sacred Theology 2.25; Washington 1949) passim.Google Scholar

17 Tractatus in Johannis Evangelium 17.16 (CCL 36.178).Google Scholar

18 Ibid. 18.2 (p. 180): ‘Commoti sunt ergo Iudaei, et indignati sunt; merito quidem, quod audebat homo aequalem se facere Deo, sed ideo immerito, quia in homine non intellegebant Deum. Carnem videbant, Deum nesciebant; habitaculum cernebant, habitatorem ignorabant.’Google Scholar

19 Ibid. 44.17 (p. 388): ‘“Si caeci essetis,” id est, si vos caecos adverteretis, si vos caecos diceretis, et ad medicum curreretis; “si ergo ita caeci essetis, non haberetis peccatum,” quia veni ego auferre peccatum. “Nunc vero dicitis: Quia videmus, peccatum vestrum manet.” Quare? Quia dicendo: “Videmus,” medicum non quaeritis, in caecitate vestra remanetis.’Google Scholar

20 Ibid. 90.3 (pp. 552–53). On Augustinian anti-Jewish polemic and its extensive influence, see below.Google Scholar

21 Moralia in Job 9.28.44 (CCL 143.487): ‘Qui rursus ait: “Si enim cognovissent, numquam Dominum gloriae crucifixissent.” Vultus ergo iudicum opertus exstitit, quia mens persequentium eum, quem carne tenere potuit, Deum nec per miracula agnovit.’ Cf. also Solomon Katz, ‘Pope Gregory the Great and the Jews,’ Jewish Quarterly Review ns 24 (1933–34) 113–25; James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue: A Study in the Origins of Antisemitism (London 1934) 210–21; and B. Blumenkranz, Les auteurs chrétiens latins du moyen ǎge sur les Juifs et le Judaïsme (Paris 1963) 73–86.Google Scholar

22 De fide catholica contra Judaeos 1.19.1 (PL 83.477). Cf. also Lukyn Williams, A., Adversus Judaeos: A Bird's Eye View of Christian Apologiae until the Renaissance (Cambridge 1935) 215–18, 282–92; and Blumenkranz, Les auteurs 88–101.Google Scholar

23 In Lucae Evangelium expositio, CCL 120.403.Google Scholar

24 That Bede's commentary on Luke was not always available to Carolingian exegetes is evidenced in the introduction by Chrétien de Stavelot to his commentary on Matthew, MGH Epist. 6.178: ‘Si ergo videro, quod vobis hoc primum factum placeat, ad evangelium Iohannis manum mittam… . Nam in Marco non est necessarium manum mittere post beatum Bedam. In Luca quoque audio post sanctum Ambrosium eundem Bedam manum misisse, sed non potui invenire adhuc in toto eius expositionem, nisi quasdam eius homelias.’ Note that Chrétien did have access to Bede's commentary on Mark, infra n. 25.Google Scholar

25 In Marci Evangelium expositio, CCL 120.585: ‘Manifestissime dominus probat Iudaeorum principes non per ignorantiam sed per invidiam crucifixisse filium Dei. Intellexerunt enim hunc esse cui dictum est, “Postula a me et dabo tibi gentes hereditatem tuam,” et propterea quasi sibi consulentes aiebant, “Ecce mundus totus post eum abiit,” et “Si dimittimus eum sic, omnes credent in eum”.’ Cf. In Lucae Evangelium expositio, CCL 120.353–54. And see pseudo-Chrysostom, Eruditi commentarii in Evangelium Matthaei 40 (PG 56.885); Rabanus Maurus, Commentaria in Matthaeum, PL 107.1051; pseudo-Bede, In Matthaei Evangelium expositio, PL 92.95; Paschasius Radbertus, Expositio in Matthaeum, PL 120.731; Chrétien de Stavelot, Expositio in Matthaeum, PL 106.1437. On the authorship of the work ascribed to Chrysostom, see C. Spicq, Esquisse d'une histoire de l'exégèse latine au moyen ǎge (Bibliothéque thomiste 26; Paris 1944) 36, 308.Google Scholar

26 See Blumenkranz, , Les auteurs 132–35, 174–78, 180, 191–94, 210–11; and, on the penchant of the Carolingian exegetes for thoughtlessly reproducing the interpretations of their sources, Beryl Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages, 2nd ed. (1952; repr. Notre Dame 1964) 37ff. When all is said and done, one may still rightly wonder as to the reasons for such noteworthy departure from the mainstream of Latin exegesis in the works of Bede, who may hardly be termed a radical innovator in his biblical commentaries. While precedents for Bede's interpretations, later cited by Thomas Aquinas in his Catena aurea (infra n. 54), existed in the homilies ascribed to Origen and John Chrysostom, it is far from certain that Bede would have had access to these works. See Laistner, M. L. W., ‘Bede as a Scholar,’ in his The Intellectual Heritage of the Early Middle Ages, ed. Chester G. Starr (New York 1972) 112ff., and ‘The Library of the Venerable Bede,’ ibid. 139ff.; and see the few relevant listings in J. D. A. Ogilvy, Books Known to the English, 597–1066 (Cambridge, Mass. 1967) 110–11, 208–10. On the character of Bede's exegesis in general, see also Paul Meyvaert, ‘Bede the Scholar,’ in Famulus Christi: Essays in Commemoration of the Thirteenth Centenary of the Birth of the Venerable Bede (London 1976) 40–69.Google Scholar

27 Expositio in Epistolam ad Corinthios primam, PL 112.23–24: ‘Hoc etiam et Petrus apostolus ad populum Judaicum dicit: “Scio, fratres, quia per ignorantiam gessistis hoc malum, sicut et principes vestri,” non tamen saeculi. Si ergo per ignorantiam servi occiderunt Dominum, peccatum eis ascribi non debet: sed non licet hoc ignorare. Et quamvis Dominum esse nescierint, tamen, quia rem impiam faciebant, non erant nescii.’Google Scholar

28 PL 117.520–21, 103.131–32 (respectively).Google Scholar

29 In Epistolam I ad Corinthios, PL 153.134. For differing views as to the authenticity of this work, which in any event is believed to date from the beginning of the twelfth century, see A. Landgraf, ‘Probleme des Schrifttums Brunos des Kartäusers,’ Collectanea franciscana 8 (1938) 542–90, and Anselme Stoelen, ‘Les commentaires scripturaires attribués à Bruno le Chartreux,’ Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 25 (1958) 177–247.Google Scholar

30 Cur Deus homo 2.15 (Opera omnia, ed. Franciscus Salesius Schmitt [Seckau 1938–61] 2.115).Google Scholar

31 PL 162.1433.Google Scholar

32 Biblia sacra 5.66a, 180f.Google Scholar

33 Ibid. 6.36a.Google Scholar

34 Ad Corinthios prima 2.8.2–3 (CSEL 81.2.25–26): ‘principes ergo huius saeculi per ignorantiam dominum maiestatis crucifixerunt. [nam] Iudaeorum principes quomodo principes saeculi huius possunt intellegi, qui erant sub (subiecti) regno Romano ? et neque Romanorum principes crucifixerunt Christum, quippe cum dixerit Pilatus: “nullam causam mortis invenio in eo.” … hi ergo principes crucifixerunt dominum, quos detriumfavit (triumfavit) libere in semetipso. quamvis dicat Marcus evangelista de daemonibus: “sciebant enim Christum esse ipsum Iesum.” scierunt quidem ipsum esse, sed qui in lege promissus erat; mysterium tamen eius, quod (quo) filius dei est, nesciebant.’ Cf. Liber quaestionum 66.1–2 (CSEL 50.115–16). On the common authorship of both works by Ambrosiaster, see Alexander Souter, A Study of Ambrosiaster (Texts and Studies: Contributions to Biblical and Patristic Literature 7.4; Cambridge 1905), and The Earliest Latin Commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul (Oxford 1927) 39–95.Google Scholar

35 Ad Corinthios prima 2.8.3. (p. 26): ‘hoc etiam et Petrus apostolus ad populum Iudaicum dixit: “scio, fratres, quia per ignorantiam gessistis hoc malum sicut et principes vestri” [non tamen saeculi].’Google Scholar

36 See supra nn. 27 (Rabanus) – 28 (Sedulius); Hatto of Vercelli, In Epistolam I ad Corinthios, PL 134.307–8; Lanfranc of Canterbury, In Epistolam B. Pauli Apostoli ad Corinthios primam, PL 150.161–62.Google Scholar

37 PL 117.520: ‘Principes hujus saeculi dupliciter intelligendi sunt in hoc loco: principes hujus saeculi, id est Octavianus, Tiberius, Herodes, Pilatus, scribae, et Pharisaei, sacerdotesque Judaeorum, non cognoverunt Christum esse Filium Dei, quia videntes illum hominem esse, videntes eum fatigari, sitire, esurire, non putabant esse Deum; unde Petrus: “Scio,” inquit, “fratres, quia per ignorantiam hoc fecistis, sicut et principes vestri”.’ Both Sedulius Scotus and Hatto of Vercelli (supra n. 36) acknowledged this interpretation but refused to accept it; it was adapted by Herveus of Bourg-Dieu later in the twelfth century In Epistolam I ad Corinthios, PL 181.832–33. Interestingly, Haimo adduced John 15. 22–24 (text #6 on our list) to establish the guilt of the Jews for an act of impiety, their ignorance of Jesus’ real nature notwithstanding.Google Scholar

38 The Glossa has even distorted the language of Ambrosiaster, using virtually the same wording to convey its differing interpretation. Cf. the opening sentence of the Glossa's comment (supra n. 33), with the variant reading of the Liber quaestionum cited in PL 35. 2261 (and retained by Sedulius Scotus, PL 103.132): ‘Non illum aliter scierunt daemones, quam sciebant principes hujus saeculi.’ The Glossa has simply omitted the last two qualifying words in Ambrosiaster's statement. The problem of the varying traditions of the Liber quaestionum is discussed by Caelestinus Martini, ‘De ordinatione duarum collectionum, quibus Ambrosiastri “Quaestiones” traduntur,’ Antonianum 22 (1947) 2348.Google Scholar

39 Pseudo-Hugh of Victor, St., In Epistolam I ad Corinthios , PL 175.518.Google Scholar

40 Lombard, Peter, In Epistolam I ad Corinthios , PL 191.1549: ‘[Speaking of the principes hujus saeculi], vel de Judaeis potest accipi, quorum quidam cognoverunt Christum; alii vero non cognoverunt. De ignorantibus dicit Petrus: “Scio, fratres, quia per ignorantiam id gessistis.” Isti non cognoscebant illum esse qui in lege promissus erat eis. Majores vero, ut principes sacerdotum, Scribae et Pharisaei cognoverunt ipsum esse qui in lege promissus erat; sed Deum esse, vel Filium Dei nescierunt. Et ideo de utrisque sic potest accipi: si cognovissent, vel minores illum esse Messiam in lege promissum, vel majores illum Deum esse, vel Dei Filium, nunquam Dominum gloriae crucifixissent… . Non igitur illum aliter scierunt daemones, quam scierunt principes.’Google Scholar

41 Comestor, Peter, Historia scholastica 126, PL 198.1604: ‘Quem cum vidissent agricolae dixerunt: “Hic est haeres,” quia sacerdotes sciverunt illum venisse… . Et dixerunt secundum Lucam: “Absit!” Intelligentes, quod Messiam occiderent.’Google Scholar

42 Biblia sacra 6.170a: ‘Duo cooperata sunt: ignorantia vestra [i.e., Judaeorum], et praescientia Dei.’Google Scholar

43 Ibid. 5.215r, 231e.Google Scholar

44 PL 181.757, and see supra n. 37.Google Scholar

45 Robert of Melun, De Epistola I ad Corinthios (Oeuvres, edd. R. M. Martin and R. M. Gallet [Louvain 1932–52] 2.181): ‘Iudei etiam videntur eum novisse. Nam in parabola evangelica sic habetur: “Ecce heres; venite, occidamus eum.” Sed mira cecitas fuit, si scirent eum esse per quem liberarentur, et tamen eum quererent interficere. Item, si sciebant eum esse Deum, sciebant eum esse inmortalem, quare nec mori posse. Quomodo ergo eius mortem querebant, si eum non posse mori sciebant?Google Scholar

‘Sed et hic dici potest quia dicti sunt cognovisse quia cognovisse se putabant. Credebant enim quidam eorum quia ipse esset; invidia tamen concitati, persequi non desistebant. Huius enim natura est invidia, ut contra sua bona aliena incommoda querat.’ By maintaining that the Jews’ blindness derived from their envy, Robert has effectively neutralized Bede's contrast between the two characteristics (supra n. 24).

46 Summa theologiae II–II.682 (Quaracchi 1924–48) 3.663: ‘Nec maiores Iudaei nec minores immunes erant a culpa, sed differenter. Maiores enim non erant immunes, eo quod scire poterant ipsum esse qui promissus erat in Lege per signa prophetiae; unde per invidiam et malitiam ipsum occiderunt, et de iis dicit Beda [supra n. 23]… . Licet ergo in parte non cognoscerent, tamen peccatum eorum non fuit excusabile per ignorantiam. Unde non omnino continebatur sub illa specie peccati quae est per ignorantiam, sed potius sub illa specie peccati quae est per industriam. Et licet esset ignorantia facti, non tamen excusabiles erant, quia fuit ignorantia facti quod oportuit scire et non dederunt operam ad plene sciendum… . Simpliciter ergo fuit peccatum per industriam illorum, secundum quid per ignorantiam’; and ibid. 3.137, 4.2.191: ‘Non cognoverunt nec daemones nec Iudaei Christum esse Deum, quamvis cognoverint ipsum esse sanctum virum.’ Nevertheless, on more than one occasion, Alexander does feel obliged to accept the Glossa's interpretation of 1 Corinthians without explicit reservation; see ibid. ad 3, and Glossa in quatuor libros Sententiarum Petri Lombardi 3.18.34, 3.20.8 (Bibliotheca Franciscana Scholastica Medii Aevi 12–15 [Quaracchi 1951–57] 3.203, 234).Google Scholar

47 In Evangelium secundum Matthaeum expositio ad 21.38, In Evangelium secundum Marcum expositio ad 12.7, In Evangelium secundum Lucam expositio ad 23.34, In III Sententiarum 18.9 (Opera omnia, ed. Augustus Borgnet [Paris 1890–99] 21.28, 647; 23.725–26; 28.323–24).Google Scholar

48 In Evangelium secundum Matthaeum expositio ad 21.38 (ibid. 21.28): ‘Sic ergo quoad indicantia dicuntur scire: sed caecitate infidelitatis dicuntur ignorare. Et undecumque causetur ignorantia, licet non excuset a toto, tamen excusat a tanto.’Google Scholar

49 Opera omnia 6.269v, 7.77r.Google Scholar

50 Ibid. 7.77r, 283v.Google Scholar

51 Commentaria in Ioannem 16.5 (Opera omnia [Quaracchi 1882–1902] 6.455): ‘Dicendum, quod Christus et Deus erat et Messias seu promissus princeps in Lege. Dicendum ergo, quod Iudaei mali cognoverunt, quod ipse erat Christus eis promissus et verax et innocens; sed quod esset Dei Filius, non cognoverunt… . Quod ergo dicitur, aut quod cognoverunt, aut quod non; referenda est cognitio ad diversa cognita. — Alii referunt ad diversa tempora, quod in principio cognoverunt; sed postmodum, impugnando per malitiam, sunt excaecati.’Google Scholar

52 Commentaria in Lucam 20.19 (ibid. 7.506). See also Commentaria in Sententiarum librum II d. 40, dub. 3 (ibid. 2.934).Google Scholar

53 Hugh, , Opera omnia 6.348r (s.v. moraliter); Bonaventure, Commentaria in Ioannem 9.50–52, 15.35–37 (Opera omnia 6.381, 454).Google Scholar

54 Catena aurea, on Matthew 21.38, Mark 12.7, Luke 23.34 (ed. Angelicus Guarienti [Turin 1953] 1.311–14, 524–25, 2.304). Most striking is the excerpt adduced by Thomas from Origen's commentary on Matthew's rendition of the parable of the vineyard, a passage extant only in the Latin translation, GCS 40.611–12: ‘“reverebuntur filium meum” videatur inpletum in illis Iudaeis, qui intellegentes Christum crediderunt in eum, hoc autem quod dictum est: “hic est heres; venite occidamus eum,” in illis inpletum sit, qui videntes Christum et cognoscentes filium dei nihilominus occiderunt eum.’Google Scholar

55 Super primam Epistolam ad Corinthios lectura 2.91 (Super Epistolas S. Pauli lectura, ed. Raphael Cai [Turin 1953] 1.250).Google Scholar

56 3.47.5: ed. Murphy, T. A. R., o.p., Blackfriars ed. (Cambridge 1964–76) 54.68–71.Google Scholar

57 On such a distinction between nature and grace in other medieval contexts, see Ernst Kantorowicz, H., ‘Deus per naturam, Deus per gratiam: A Note on Medieval Political Theology, Harvard Theological Review 45 (1952) 253–77.Google Scholar

58 In librum tertium Sententiarum d. 20, ad 5 (Opera omnia [Paris 1891–95] 14.739): ‘tamen Anselmus dicit … quod non potuerunt eum scienter occidisse, hoc tamen non credo, sed credo quod licet scivissent eum Deum per unionem, adhuc potuissent eum occidisse.’Google Scholar

59 Postilla litteralis on Matthew 21, in Biblia sacra 5.66gh: ‘Sed hoc non videtur con-venienter dictum, quia sicut scripturae determinate loquuntur de tempore sui adventus … ita expresse vel expressius loquuntur scripturae prophetarum de eius divinitate … et ideo dicendum, quod sicut maiores populi Iudaeorum habuerunt noticiam de tempore et signis sui adventus, ita noticiam per scripturas habuerunt, quantum ad eius divinitatem.’Google Scholar

60 Ibid. Cf. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 7.3.5 (ed. H. Rackham [Cambridge, Mass. 1975] 386–89), where the distinction is drawn between [corresponding to Nicholas’ knower ‘in habitu’] [corresponding to the knower ‘in actu’].Google Scholar

61 On the evolution and character of Christian anti-Jewish polemic before Augustine, see S. Krauss, ‘The Jews in the Works of the Church Fathers,’ Jewish Quarterly Review os 5 (1892) 122–57, 6 (1894) 82–99, 225–61; Marcel Simon, Verus Israel: Étude sur les relations entre Chrétiens et Juifs dans l'Empire Romain, 135–425 (Paris 1948) 166–213; N. R. M. de Lange, Origen and the Jews: Studies in Jewish–Christian Relations in Third-Century Palestine (Cambridge 1976) 75–102; Parkes, The Conflict 27–195; Williams, Adversus Judaeos 3–104, 117–40; Blumenkranz, Die Judenpredigt 9–58; and Ruether, Faith and Fratricide 64–183.Google Scholar

62 Tractatus adversus Judaeos, PL 42.51–67; De civitate Dei 18.46, CCL 48.644–45. On the Augustinian teachings concerning the Jews, see above all Blumenkranz, Die Judenpredigt, and ‘Augustin et les Juifs; Augustin et le Judaïsme,’ Recherches augustiniennes 1 (1958) 225–41. On the resulting Jewish policy of the Church in the early Middle Ages, see Blumenkranz, Juifs et Chrétiens dans le monde occidental, 430–1096 (Paris 1960); Solomon Grayzel, ‘The Papal Bull Sicut Judaeis,’ in Studies and Essays in Honor of Abraham A. Neuman, edd. Meir Ben-Horin et al. (Leiden 1962) 246ff.; and, most recently, Kenneth R. Stow, ‘Sin'at Yisra'el 'o ‘Ahavat ha-Keneisiyyah: Gishat ha-‘Appifyorim la-Yehudim,’ in Anti-Semitism through the Ages: A Collection of Essays [Hebrew], ed. Shmuel Almog (Jerusalem 1980) 91–111.Google Scholar

63 Regarding these various aspects of Jewish–Christian relations in the twelfth century, see, among others, Salo Wittmayer Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews (2nd ed.; New York 1952–80) 4.89–149, Bernhard Blumenkranz, ‘Die Entwicklung im Westen zwischen 200 und 1200,’ in Kirche und Synagogue: Handbuch zur Geschichte von Christen und Juden, edd. Karl Heinrich Rengstorf and Siegfried von Kortzfleisch (Stuttgart 1968–70) 1.115–32, and Hans Liebeschütz, ‘The Crusading Movement in Its Bearing on the Christian Attitude towards Jewry,’ Journal of Jewish Studies 10 (1959) 97111, on the crusades and their aftermath; Lester K. Little, Religious Poverty and the Profit Economy in Medieval Europe (Ithaca 1978) 42–57, on socio-economic tensions in particular; Smalley, Study of the Bible 149–72, Herman Hailperin, Rashi and the Christian Scholars (Pittsburgh 1963) 103ff., and Aryeh Grabois, ‘The Hebraica Veritas and Jewish–Christian Intellectual Relations in the Twelfth Century,’ Speculum 50 (1975) 613–34, on scholarly interaction; Solomon Grayzel, ‘Pope Alexander III and the Jews,’ in Salo Wittmayer Baron Jubilee Volume, edd. Saul Lieberman and Arthur Hyman (Jerusalem 1974) 2.555–72, and The Church and the Jews in the XIIIth Century (rev. ed.; New York 1966) 4–143, 296ff., and Edward A. Synan, The Popes and the Jews in the Middle Ages (New York 1965) 66–107, on changing papal policy; and, above all, with regard to religious polemic, Amos Funkenstein, ‘Changes in the Pattern of Christian anti-Jewish Polemic in the Twelfth Century [Hebrew],’ Zion ns 33 (1968) 125–44, and ‘Basic Types of Christian Anti-Jewish Polemics in the Later Middle Ages,’ Viator 2 (1971) 373–82.Google Scholar

64 Independently of the friars’ exegetical position considered in the present study, I have analyzed the substance and development of mendicant anti-Judaism in The Friars and the Jews.Google Scholar

65 Tractatus adversus Judaeos 1.2 (PL 42.51–52).Google Scholar

66 Ibid. 7.10, col. 59.Google Scholar

67 Pugio fidei adversus Mauros et Judaeos 2.8.5. (1687; repr. Farnborough 1967) 362. I have treated Martini and his polemic in the Friars 129–69; see also R. Bonfil, ‘The Nature of Judaism in Raymundus Martini's Pugio fidei [Hebrew],’ Tarbiz 40 (1971) 360–75.Google Scholar

68 Alexander, , Summa theologiae II–II.740 (Quaracchi ed. 3.729–30); Palémon Glorieux, Répertoire des maǐtres en théologie de Paris au XIIIe siècle (Études de philosophie médiévale 17–18; Paris 1933–34) 1.43–51; Heinrich Denifle, ed., Chartularium universitatis parisiensis (Paris 1889–97) 1.209–11.Google Scholar

69 Berthier, André, ‘Un maǐtre orientaliste du xiiie siècle: Raymond Martin o.p.,’ Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 6 (1936) 299304; Thomas Aquinas, Liber de veritate catholicae fidei contra errores infidelium, edd. Peter Marc et al. (Turin 1961–67) 1.53–79.Google Scholar

On the propinquity in basic intellectual and philosophical outlook between Aquinas and these Spanish Dominicans, see also my ‘Original Sin as the Evil Inclination — A Polemicist's Appreciation of Human Nature,’ Harvard Theological Review 73 (1980) 495–520.

70 In librum quartum Sententiarum d. 4, q. 9 (Opera omnia 16.487–97); see also Jacob Guttmann, Die Scholastik des dreizehnten Jahrhunderts in ihren Beziehungen zum Judenthum und zur jüdischen Literatur (Breslau 1902; repr. Hildesheim 1970) 157–59.Google Scholar

71 Cohen, , The Friars 170–95.Google Scholar

72 Ludolf of Saxony, Vita Jesu Christi 2.33.1, 2.63.28 (ed. L.-M. Rigollot [Paris 1870] 3.253–54, 4.585), merely mentions that according to one of several interpretations of the parable of the vineyard the Jews recognized Jesus as the heir to and ruler over all, and he offers Bede's only as an alternative explanation of Luke 23.34. (Cf. also 1.85.5, ibid. 2.766.) In a most concerted fashion, Denis the Carthusian, Enarratio in Evangelium secundum Matthaeum 21.35 (Opera omnia [Carthusa 1896–1912] 11.239–40), cites the previous proponents of the tradition of intentionality but then proceeds to reject it; while the Jewish majores may for some brief time have conjectured that Jesus was the messiah, they had no such impression when they crucified him. Cf. Enarratio in Evangelum secundum Lucam 23.49, and Enarratio in Actus Apostolorum 3.3 (ibid. 12.239–40, 14.1.105). And in his additio 4 to the Postilla litteralis on Matthew 21 (Biblia sacra 5.67def), Paul of Burgos responded vehemently against the opinion of Nicholas of Lyra considered above (nn. 59–60); not even the leaders of the Jews could have overcome their blindness and understood from Scripture the true nature of Jesus without the gratuitous assistance of God.Google Scholar

73 The author wishes to thank Professors Brian Tierney, James John, and Giuseppe Mazzotta of Cornell University, and Tamar Rudavsky and Ivan Boh of Ohio State University, for their most helpful advice and criticism during the various stages of the preparation of this article.Google Scholar