Translations from Opera omnia (1674 edition)
Context
These passages are from the Opera omnia (Complete Works) of William of Auvergne (Guillelmus Alvernus/Guillelmus Parisiensis, c. 1180-1249), Bishop of Paris from 1228 until his death. The 1674 edition primarily contains his sermons (Sermones), though it also references his major theological treatises including De universo (On the Universe), De fide et legibus (On Faith and Laws), and De sacramentis (On the Sacraments).
William of Auvergne was one of the most important theologians of the early 13th century and played a significant role in the reception of Aristotelian philosophy into Christian theology. However, like many medieval Christian theologians, his works contain anti-Jewish polemics that reflect the supersessionist theology and hostility toward Judaism prevalent in medieval Christendom. These passages contributed to an intellectual climate that justified discrimination and persecution of Jewish communities.
The translations below are from various sermons in the collection, organized thematically.
Passage 1: The Jews‘ Fall and Gentile Resurrection
Latin (lines 4454-4462):
cum dicitur in Evangelio Lucæ 2. Ecce positus est hic in ruinam, &c (in ruinam scilicet Judæorum, qui ceciderunt per infidelitatem (in resurrectionem) Gentilium qui surrexerunt per fidem, sicut ait Joan. 9. Veni in mundum ut qui non vident, videant, & qui vident, cæci fiant, &c. Quia vero in fine mundi reliquiæ Judæorum convertentur, ad fidem, ideo cantatur in fine Missæ, tolle puerum, &c.
English Translation:
“As it is said in the Gospel of Luke 2[:34]: ‘Behold, this child is set for the fall,’ etc. (namely for the fall of the Jews, who fell through unfaithfulness, and for the resurrection of the Gentiles who arose through faith), just as it says in John 9[:39]: ‘I came into the world that those who do not see might see, and those who see might become blind,’ etc. Because truly at the end of the world the remnant of the Jews will be converted to the faith, therefore it is sung at the end of Mass, ‘take the child,’ etc.”
Note: This passage interprets Christ’s coming as causing the “fall” of Jews through their “unfaithfulness” while the Gentiles “arose through faith.” It reflects the supersessionist theology that Christianity has replaced Judaism. The reference to a future conversion of Jews at the end times was a common medieval Christian belief.
Passage 2: Destruction of Three Errors – Jews Denying Christ
Latin (lines 4470-4479):
Et destruit hic triplicem errorem; Primo Judæorum asserentium Christum non venisse, ibi, ubi venit plenitudo temporis, Secundo hæreticorum dogmatizantium Christum corpus phantasticum habuisse, & non traxisse de Virgine, ibi, natum ex muliere: tertio Manichæorum dicentium veterem legem à Deo non esse, ibi, factum sub lege.
English Translation:
“And here [the Apostle] destroys a threefold error: First, [the error] of the Jews asserting that Christ has not come, there [in the passage], ‘when the fullness of time came’; Second, [the error] of heretics teaching that Christ had a phantasmal body and did not derive [his body] from the Virgin, there, ‘born of a woman’; third, [the error] of the Manicheans saying that the Old Law is not from God, there, ‘made under the law.'”
Note: William groups the Jews with Christian heretics and Manicheans as holding erroneous theological positions. The first “error” attributed to Jews is their denial that the Messiah has already come in the person of Jesus Christ.
Passage 3: Jews Circumcision and the Four Causes
Latin (lines 4654-4661):
factus [est] sub lege, non ex necessitate, sed voluntarie, quia circumcisus fuit & omnes observantias legis implevit. Et hoc propter quatuor causas. Prima ne Judæi dicerent, quod legem implere non potuisset. Secunda ut legem à Deo datam probaret. Tertia ut onera nostra experimento cognosceret, & nobis compati disceret. Quarta ut in seipso veterem legem terminaret.
English Translation:
“[Christ] was made under the law, not from necessity, but voluntarily, because he was circumcised and fulfilled all the observances of the law. And this for four reasons. First, lest the Jews should say that he could not fulfill the law. Second, that he might prove the law [was] given by God. Third, that he might know our burdens by experience and learn to sympathize with us. Fourth, that in himself he might bring the old law to an end.”
Note: This passage argues that Christ submitted to Jewish law to validate it, demonstrate he could fulfill it (refuting potential Jewish objections), and ultimately to terminate it. This reflects the supersessionist view that the Mosaic Law ended with Christ.
Passage 4: Christian Lending to Jews at Interest
Latin (lines 5402-5405):
Mirum est quod homines nolunt accommodare Deo ad tale usuram, ad qualem accommodarent Judæis & Saracenis, si hoc possent sine peccato.
English Translation:
“It is astonishing that people do not wish to lend to God at such interest as they would lend to Jews and Saracens, if they could do so without sin.”
Note: This passage references the practice of charging interest (usury) in loans to Jews and Muslims, which was forbidden among Christians but permitted in dealings with non-Christians. The passage uses this as a rhetorical device to encourage spiritual investment in God, but it also reflects the economic marginalization of Jews, who were often forced into moneylending roles because they were excluded from other professions.
Passage 5: Similar to Jews Who Made the Golden Calf
Latin (lines 23357-23359, 23377-23381):
similes Judæis, de quibus scriptum est. Exod. 32. Sedit populus manducare & bibere, & surrexerunt ludere, id est, ludos in venerationem diaboli facere… similes Judæis, qui dixerunt ante vitulum aureum: hi sunt dii tui Israel, qui eduxerunt te de terra Ægypti. Exod. 32.
English Translation:
“[they are] similar to the Jews, concerning whom it is written in Exodus 32[:6]: ‘The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play,’ that is, to make games in veneration of the devil… similar to the Jews, who said before the golden calf: ‘These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.’ Exodus 32[:4].”
Note: William uses the biblical story of the Golden Calf as a negative example, comparing contemporary Christians who engage in worldly pleasures and idolatry to the ancient Israelites‘ sin. This typological use of Jewish sin as a cautionary example was common in medieval preaching.
Passage 6: Jews and Saracens Show Kindness to Their Children
Latin (lines 23481-23485):
cum tamen sciant & Judæos & sarracenos hanc bonitatem habere, quod filiis suis de cibo provideant.
English Translation:
“although they know that both Jews and Saracens have this goodness, that they provide food for their children.”
Note: This passage actually acknowledges that Jews (and Muslims) care for their children properly, using this as an argument that Christians who trust God should not fear poverty since even non-Christians show parental care, and surely God will care for Christians even more. This is one of the less hostile references, though it still operates within a framework of Christian superiority.
Passage 7: Christian Denial More Shameful than Jewish Denial
Latin (lines 24084-24092):
quantum ad hoc magis videtur esse contumeliosa Dei negatio Christiani, quam negatio Judæi vel Sarraceni. Tertio quia talis Christianus nullius legis esse videtur. Legis enim Christianæ non videtur esse, cum ipse sit ejus transgressor. Legis etiam Judæorum non videtur esse, cum eam non observet, nec legis Sarracenorum, cum legis Machometi nescius sit. Judæi vero & Sarraceni legis alicujus sunt, licet in ea non salventur.
English Translation:
“Insofar as this is concerned, the Christian’s denial of God seems to be more insulting than the denial of a Jew or Saracen. Third, because such a Christian seems to be of no law. For he does not seem to be of the Christian law, since he is a transgressor of it. Nor does he seem to be of the law of the Jews, since he does not observe it, nor of the law of the Saracens, since he is ignorant of the law of Mohammed. But the Jews and Saracens are of some law, although they are not saved in it.”
Note: This passage argues that a sinful Christian is worse than a Jew or Muslim because at least Jews and Muslims follow their own religious laws, even if (in William’s view) these laws cannot save them. This reveals the logic of medieval Christian supersessionism: other religions may have some validity but cannot provide salvation.
Passage 8: Envy Blinded the Jews
Latin (lines 43698-43699):
Melius est habere sanæ mentis dolentem, quam phreneticum ridentem. Gregor. Inter duos ægros… In[vidia] excæcavit Judæos. Sap. 2: Excæcavit illos malitia eorum.
English Translation:
“It is better to have [someone] of sound mind grieving, than a madman laughing. Gregory: Between two sick persons… Envy blinded the Jews. Wisdom 2[:21]: ‘Their own malice blinded them.'”
Note: This passage, citing Gregory the Great and the Book of Wisdom, argues that envy caused the Jews‘ spiritual blindness. This was a standard medieval Christian interpretation: Jews failed to recognize Christ as the Messiah because of moral and spiritual defects (envy, hardness of heart, etc.) rather than because of sincere theological disagreement.
Passage 9: Admiration of the Jews at Judgment
Latin (lines 46071-46072):
Quarto potest intelligi de murmure admirationis, & secundum hoc illud murmur est admiratio Judæorum in Judicio de gloria Gentium.
English Translation:
“Fourth, it can be understood as a murmur of admiration, and according to this, that murmur is the admiration of the Jews at the Judgment concerning the glory of the Gentiles.”
Note: In this exegetical passage, William interprets a biblical reference to “murmuring” as the Jews‘ future amazement at the Final Judgment when they see Gentile Christians glorified – an eschatological reversal of the Jews‘ historical priority as God’s chosen people.
Passage 10: Jews‘ Evil Intention
Latin (lines 46141-46147):
Glossa. Vero Judæi pravam intentionem habebant, qui prohibebant Apostolis loqui Gentibus ut salvæ fierent: Erunt novissimi, scilicet Gentiles qui minoris videntur meriti erunt majoris; & primi, id est, Judæi, novissimi, vel qui videntur esse majoris meriti erunt minoris.
English Translation:
“Gloss: But the Jews had an evil intention, who forbade the Apostles to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved: ‘The last shall be [first],’ namely the Gentiles who seem to be of lesser merit will be of greater [merit]; and ‘the first,’ that is, the Jews, [shall be] last, or those who seem to be of greater merit will be of lesser [merit].”
Note: This passage interprets Jesus’s saying “the last shall be first and the first shall be last” (Matthew 20:16) as specifically referring to Jews and Gentiles. It accuses Jews of having “evil intention” in opposing the Christian mission to Gentiles. This reflects the hostile reading of Acts and the Pauline epistles that portrayed Jews as obstacles to Christian evangelism.
Analysis
These passages from William of Auvergne’s sermons demonstrate several key features of medieval Christian anti-Jewish polemic:
Theological Supersessionism
The fundamental claim that Christianity has replaced Judaism as God’s covenant people. Jews who reject Christ have “fallen” while Gentile Christians have “risen.”
Attribution of Moral Defects
Jews are portrayed as suffering from spiritual blindness, envy, malice, and evil intentions that prevent them from recognizing Christian truth.
Typological Interpretation
Old Testament stories of Israelite sin (like the Golden Calf) are used as negative types for contemporary Christian behavior, implicitly characterizing Jews as persistently sinful.
Economic Marginalization
References to Jewish moneylending reflect and reinforce the economic segregation of Jewish communities in medieval Europe.
Eschatological Reversal
The belief that Jews will ultimately be displaced by Gentiles in God’s favor, though a “remnant” might convert at the end times.
Comparative Denigration
Jews are sometimes compared unfavorably even to Muslims or to sinful Christians, positioned at the bottom of religious hierarchies.
These theological positions provided intellectual justification for legal discrimination, social marginalization, and periodic violence against Jewish communities throughout medieval Europe. While William of Auvergne’s anti-Jewish passages are relatively moderate compared to some contemporaries (he does not, in these excerpts, call for violence), they contributed to a theological culture that legitimized Jewish persecution.
Limitations of This Translation
The 1674 Opera omnia edition examined here contains primarily William’s sermons. His major theological treatises like De universo and De fide et legibus are referenced in the table of contents but the full texts do not appear to be included in this particular manuscript scan, or the anti-Jewish passages in those works may be less extensive than in his homiletic material. For a complete survey of William’s anti-Jewish polemic, the critical editions of his individual treatises would need to be consulted.
Source. Internet Archive – Guillelmus Alvernus (William of Auvergne). Opera omnia. Orleans: Typographia F. Hotot, 1674. Translated by: Claude (Anthropic) Date: February 2026 Research Purpose: Medieval Adversus Judaeos literature study