Volume I — Commentary on the Sentences, Book I
The Commentarium in I Librum Sententiarum engages Jewish themes primarily in the context of predestination and divine foreknowledge. The following passage is among the few that reference Jews explicitly.
1.1 — Divine Foreknowledge and the Infidelity of the Jews
Context: Discussing whether divine prescience causes sin, Bonaventure cites Augustine on how God foreknew but did not cause Jewish infidelity.
Latin:
Praescivit et praedixit etiam quae non est ipse facturus; sicut praescivit et praedixit infidelitatem Judaeorum, sed non fecit: nec ideo quia praescivit ad peccatum infidelitatis eos coegit; nec praescisset vel praedixisset eorum mala, nisi essent ea habituri.
Translation:
He foreknew and predicted even those things that He Himself was not going to do; just as He foreknew and predicted the infidelity of the Jews, but did not cause it: nor did He compel them to the sin of infidelity because He foreknew it; nor would He have foreknown or predicted their evils, had they not been going to have them.
1.2 — The Acts of the Jews in the Passion: Evil Intention, Good Effect
Context: On whether God willed the Passion through the Jews‘ evil act. Bonaventure carefully distinguishes God’s good will from the Jews‘ bad will.
Latin:
Judaei mala voluntate quiddam quod Deus bona voluntate volebat, scilicet ut Christus pateretur, et moreretur: sed volebant et aliquid aliud quod Deus nolebat, scilicet occidere Christum, quod fuit mala actio et peccatum. Actum quippe Judaeorum non voluit Deus, passionem vero Christi voluit.
Translation:
The Jews, with evil will, willed something that God willed with good will — namely, that Christ should suffer and die — but they also willed something else that God did not will, namely to kill Christ, which was an evil act and a sin. Indeed, God did not will the act of the Jews, but He did will the Passion of Christ.
Latin (continued):
Voluit itaque tota Trinitas ut Christus pateretur, nec tamen voluit ut Judaei occiderent: quia voluit poenam Christi, sed non voluit culpam Judaeorum.
Translation:
The whole Trinity therefore willed that Christ should suffer, and yet did not will that the Jews should kill: for it willed the penalty of Christ, but did not will the guilt of the Jews.
Latin (continued):
Sicut per malevolos Judaeos bona voluntate Patris Christus pro nobis occisus est… hoc idem Judaei, et diabolus; sed illi mala voluntate, Deus vero bona voluntate, scilicet ut Christus moreretur.
Translation:
Just as through the malevolent Jews, by the good will of the Father, Christ was killed for us… the Jews and the devil willed the same thing; but they with evil will, and God with good will — namely, that Christ should die.
1.3 — The Synagogue, the Moon, and the Calendar
Context: On why the Jewish calendar is reckoned by the moon while the Christian calendar follows the sun. The Synagogue‘s use of the lunar calendar reflects its spiritual condition.
Latin:
Quia Synagoga in tenebris noctis ambulabat, et minuenda erat, ideo a luminari quod nocti praeest, et quod minuitur in consummatione, accipiebat suarum solemnitatum distinctionem; quia vero Ecclesia iam ambulat in lumine…
Translation:
Because the Synagogue walked in the darkness of night and was destined to diminish, it therefore derived the reckoning of its feasts from the luminary that rules the night and that wanes at its end; but because the Church now walks in the light…
Volume II — Commentary on the Sentences, Book II
The second book of Sentences addresses creation, angels, and the fall. Jewish references here concern divine forbearance and the nature of the Passion.
2.1 — On God’s Will and the Betrayal of Christ
Context: Further refinement of the distinction between God’s willing of the Passion and the culpable role of Judas and the Jews.
Latin:
Iudas tradidit prodendo, et Iudaei instigando. Et fuit actus Iudae et Iudaeorum malus, et actus Christi vel Patris bonus; opus Christi et Patris bonum, quia bona Patris et Filii voluntas; malum fuit opus Iudae et Iudaeorum, quia mala fuit intentio.
Translation:
Judas betrayed by handing over, and the Jews by inciting. And the act of Judas and the Jews was evil, while the act of Christ or the Father was good; the work of Christ and the Father was good, because the will of Father and Son was good; the work of Judas and the Jews was evil, because their intention was evil.
Latin:
Iudas et Iudaei procuraverunt, ut alii inferrent ei mortem; hinc est, quod traditus dicitur a Iuda et a Iudaeis. Et quoniam sustinentia mortis fuit laudabilis, illatio autem fuit vituperabilis; hinc est, quod traditio Dei et Christi laudatur, traditio Iudae et Iudaeorum vituperatur.
Translation:
Judas and the Jews arranged for others to inflict death upon Him; hence He is said to have been handed over by Judas and by the Jews. And because the bearing of death was praiseworthy, but its infliction was blameworthy, the handing-over by God and Christ is praised, while the handing-over by Judas and the Jews is condemned.
2.2 — The Evil Acts of the Jews Produced a Great Good
Context: Responding to the apparent paradox that an evil action produced salvation. Bonaventure resolves it by distinguishing act from effect.
Latin:
Iudaei enim fuerunt operati passionem Christi, quae quidem fuit maximum bonum et saluberrimum toti mundo. Illud enim opus operatum bonitatem non habuit ex intentione Iudaeorum.
Translation:
For the Jews brought about the Passion of Christ, which was the greatest good and most salutary for the whole world. For that work as accomplished did not derive its goodness from the intention of the Jews.
2.3 — What the Jew Sees vs. What Faith Requires
Context: On the nature of faith in Christ’s death, distinguishing mere empirical acknowledgment (which even a Jew could have) from true theological faith.
Latin:
Non enim virtus fidei erat, quod credebatur homo pati et mori, quod Iudaeus cernens credebat; sed quod credebatur Deus esse qui patiebatur… hominem illum mortuum, quod et Iudaeus credit, sed quia credimus, hominem-Deum mortuum esse.
Translation:
For it was not the virtue of faith to believe that a man was suffering and dying — which the Jew, seeing it, believed — but to believe that He who suffered was God… [what matters is not] that that man was dead, which the Jew also believes, but that we believe the man-God was dead.
Volume III — Commentary on the Sentences, Book III
The third book of Sentences covers the Incarnation, the virtues, and the commandments. Jewish references here concern biblical interpretation and Christology.
3.1 — On the Argument Against Jews Regarding Melchisedech
Context: Bonaventure addresses an argument directed specifically against Jews who claimed Abraham’s superior dignity — and therefore his superiority to Christ — based on tribal lineage.
Latin:
Responsio directa est ad illos contra quos arguit, scilicet Iudaeos, qui supponebant, Abraham digniorem esse in suo genere. Si ergo Abraham benedictus fuit a Melchisedech et ei decimas obtulit tanquam superiori, sequitur…
Translation:
The response is directed against those he is arguing against, namely the Jews, who assumed Abraham to be more distinguished in his lineage. If therefore Abraham was blessed by Melchisedech and offered him tithes as to a superior, it follows…
3.2 — The Synagogue‘s Certainty of Faith vs. the Church’s
Context: On whether the faith of the Church is more certain than that of the Synagogue. Bonaventure argues the Church’s faith is more confirmed because of greater witnesses and greater devotion.
Latin:
Certius est aliquid, quanto pluribus testibus confirmatur; sed fides Ecclesiae pluribus testibus confirmata est, quam fuerit fides Synagogae, sive quantum ad mirabilia, sive quantum ad martyria, sive quantum ad Prophetarum oracula.
Translation:
Something is more certain the more it is confirmed by witnesses; but the faith of the Church has been confirmed by more witnesses than was the faith of the Synagogue, whether with regard to miracles, or to martyrdoms, or to the oracles of the Prophets.
Latin:
Devotionem ipsius Ecclesiae admiratur Synagoga in Canticis quasi per totum, secundum quod Glossae exponunt.
Translation:
The Synagogue admires the devotion of the Church throughout the Song of Songs, according to the expositions of the Glosses.
3.3 — The Perfidy of Those Who Deny the Resurrection
Context: Discussing Athanasius’s condemnation of those who deny the resurrection. The word ‘perfidia’ (faithlessness/perfidy) is here applied to those who refused belief in the resurrection.
Latin:
Sciendum est igitur, Athanasium id dixisse contra illorum perfidiam, qui resurrectionem Christi negabant putantes, morte delineri qui solus inter mortuos liber est.
Translation:
One must know that Athanasius said this against the perfidy of those who denied the resurrection of Christ, thinking that He who alone is free among the dead was held fast by death.
3.4 — The Law Was Never Meant to Instill Hatred of Enemies
Context: On the commandment to love enemies. Bonaventure argues that Jews misread the Law by inferring from ‘love your neighbor’ a commandment to hate enemies.
Latin:
Haec Lex nunquam praecipit, odio haberi inimicum, sed ipsi Iudaei hoc arguebant a contrario sensu: quia tantum praecipiebatur eis diligere amicos, arguebant ex hoc, quod debebant odire inimicos.
Translation:
This Law never commanded that an enemy be hated, but the Jews argued this from a contrario: because they were commanded only to love friends, they argued from this that they ought to hate enemies.
Volume IV — Commentary on the Sentences, Book IV
The fourth book of Sentences covers the sacraments, the last things, and marriage law. It contains some of the most practically relevant passages concerning Jews — especially regarding circumcision, sacramental validity, and marriage prohibitions.
4.1 — God Never Loved Jewish Sacrifices
Context: On the insufficiency of Old Testament sacrifices. Bonaventure cites the Gloss on Psalm 50 as evidence that God never desired Jewish cultic observance for its own sake.
Latin:
Dixit, se nunquam sacrificia Iudaeorum amasse. [Glossa:] ‘Praeterito utens, ostendit, se nunquam sacrificia Iudaeorum amasse.’
Translation:
[The Psalmist] said that He never loved the sacrifices of the Jews. [Gloss:] ‘Using the past tense, he shows that He never loved the sacrifices of the Jews.’
4.2 — Circumcision as a Mark of Distinction for the Jews
Context: On why circumcision was given to Jewish males and not females. Bonaventure explains it served both a remedial and a distinguishing function.
Latin:
Circumcisio non tantum fuit in remedium, sed etiam in signum distinctionis, ut gens Iudaeorum ab aliis discerneretur, ex quo Christus debebat ab ea nasci; et quia propagatio et genealogia attenditur penes mares: ideo illis data fuit, non mulieribus.
Translation:
Circumcision was not only a remedy, but also a sign of distinction, so that the people of the Jews might be separated from others, since Christ was to be born from them; and because propagation and genealogy is reckoned through males: therefore it was given to them and not to women.
Latin:
Circumcisionis fuisse, ut Iudaei ab aliis gentibus distinguerentur.
Translation:
[The purpose] of circumcision was that the Jews might be distinguished from other peoples.
4.3 — The Synagogue Which Abandoned and Denied Christ
Context: On why the Church, not the Synagogue, received the perfect sacraments. The Synagogue forfeited them by its rejection of Christ.
Latin:
Non synagoga, quae ipsum deseruit et negavit: usque ad tempus gratiae perfecta Sacramenta non instituit; nihilominus tamen aliqua imperfecta, secundum quod congruebat illis temporibus, in sustentationem dedit.
Translation:
Not the Synagogue, which abandoned and denied him: [God] did not institute perfect sacraments until the time of grace; but He did give some imperfect ones, as was fitting for those times, for the sake of sustenance.
4.4 — Christ Had the Synagogue Not as a Wife, But as a Concubine
Context: On the typological significance of certain matrimonial laws. Bonaventure uses the concubinage figure to explain why the Synagogue‘s bond to Christ was not indissoluble like marriage.
Latin:
Christus autem, etsi virgo fuit, tamen Synagogam habuit non ut uxorem, sed ut concubinam.
Translation:
But Christ, although He was a virgin, nevertheless had the Synagogue not as a wife, but as a concubine.
Latin:
Christus autem copulatus fuit Synagogae, quamvis non insolubiliter, et ita non matrimonialiter.
Translation:
But Christ was united to the Synagogue, though not indissolubly, and thus not matrimonially.
4.5 — Christians Must Not Marry Jews
Context: On impediments to matrimony. Inter-marriage with Jews is prohibited both by Old and New Testament precedent, and Jews are characterized as obstinate in malice.
Latin:
Non enim licet Christiano cum gentili vel Iudaea inire coniugium, quia etiam in veteri testamento prohibitum est, fideles viros infideles ducere uxores… Iuxta hoc Domini praeceptum Iudaeorum coniugia cum alienigenis inita Esdras separavit.
Translation:
For it is not lawful for a Christian to enter into marriage with a pagan or a Jewess, because even in the Old Testament it was forbidden for believing men to take unbelieving women as wives… According to this commandment of the Lord, Ezra dissolved the marriages of Jews contracted with foreigners.
Latin:
Iudaei adeo sunt obstinati in malitia, quod potius volebant pervertere quam converti, adhuc gentilibus ad fidem intrantibus.
Translation:
The Jews are so obstinate in malice that they preferred to pervert [others] rather than to be converted themselves, even as Gentiles were entering the faith.
Volume V — Opuscula Varia Theologica (Collationes in Hexaemeron)
Volume V contains the Opuscula Theologica, most significantly the Collationes in Hexaemeron — sermons delivered at Paris in 1273, just two years before Bonaventure’s death. These represent his most mature theological vision and contain several passages of direct engagement with Jewish interpretation and polemic. This volume also includes the Breviloquium and Itinerarium Mentis in Deum.
5.1 — Questions Against Jews Preserved in Manuscripts
Context: Prolegomena note from the Quaracchi editors identifying anti-Jewish disputational questions associated with Bonaventure in manuscript sources.
Latin:
Tunc sequuntur quaestiones contra Iudaeos, omnes anonymae.
Translation:
Then follow questions against the Jews, all of them anonymous.
[Editorial note: The Quaracchi editors found a set of anti-Jewish disputational questions in a manuscript containing Bonaventurean material but left them anonymous, unable to confirm his authorship.]
5.2 — The Synagogue: From Flourishing to Decline
Context: In the Collationes in Hexaemeron, Bonaventure maps the six ages of the world onto the six days of creation, correlating each with the life of the Synagogue.
Latin:
In tertia aetate, quae durat ab Abraham usque ad David, tunc coepit Synagoga in Abraham et per circumcisionem factam in carne eius florere.
Translation:
In the third age, which extends from Abraham to David, the Synagogue began to flourish in Abraham and through the circumcision made in his flesh.
Latin:
In quarta aetate sub regibus floruit synagoga. — Quinta, senectus, quia sicut in senectute vires minuuntur, et decidit pulchritudo, sic et in transmigratione factum est de Iudaeorum sacerdotio.
Translation:
In the fourth age the Synagogue flourished under the kings. — The fifth [age corresponds to] old age, because just as in old age strength diminishes and beauty fades, so in the Exile the same happened to the priesthood of the Jews.
Latin:
A transmigatione Babylonis usque ad Christum, Synagoga incepit deficere et senuit et perdidit auctoritatem.
Translation:
From the Babylonian exile until Christ, the Synagogue began to fail, grew old, and lost its authority.
5.3 — The Midday Sun Sets on the Jews
Context: In the Collationes, Bonaventure applies the prophetic image of the midday sun setting to the blindness that fell on the Jews at the height of Christ’s power.
Latin:
In meridie sol occidit Iudaeis. Quando Christus fuit in maiori sua virtute, scilicet post resurrectionem et ascensionem; Iudaei fuerunt excaecati.
Translation:
At midday the sun set on the Jews. When Christ was at the height of His power, namely after the resurrection and ascension, the Jews were blinded.
5.4 — The Jews as the Sign of Cain
Context: In the Collationes, Bonaventure reads the story of Cain typologically, connecting it to the preservation of the Jews as a wandering sign.
Latin:
Christus interfectus est a fratribus suis; et signum positum est in Iudaeis, ut non interficiantur, sed sint vagi et profugi super terram.
Translation:
Christ was killed by His brothers; and a mark was placed on the Jews so that they should not be killed, but should be wanderers and fugitives on the earth.
Latin:
In quo positum est signum, scilicet Iudaeos, qui per Cain significantur. Et ideo de Lamech ultio dabitur septuagies septies, quia maius erit peccatum eius quam peccatum Iudaeorum.
Translation:
In which the mark was placed, namely upon the Jews, who are signified by Cain. And therefore vengeance will be exacted of Lamech seventy-seven times, because his sin will be greater than the sin of the Jews.
5.5 — The Final Conversion of the Jews
Context: Bonaventure affirms that the eventual conversion of the Jews is scripturally certain, drawing on Isaiah and Romans.
Latin:
Quod autem Iudaei convertantur, certum est per Isaiam et Apostolum, qui allegat auctoritatem: Si fuerit numerus filiorum Israel tanquam arena maris, reliquiae salvae fient. Et adhuc: Caecitas ex parte contingit in Israel, donec plenitudo gentium introeat.
Translation:
That the Jews will be converted is certain through Isaiah and the Apostle, who cites the authority: ‘If the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, the remnant shall be saved.’ And further: ‘Blindness has come upon Israel in part, until the fullness of the Gentiles shall enter.’
5.6 — ‘Perfidious Jew, You Have the Law in Your Hand’
Context: A rhetorical address in the Collationes, directed at the Jew who possesses the Law but lacks the grace to fulfill it. This is among the most directly polemical passages in Bonaventure’s corpus.
Latin:
Sic, quantumcumque glorietur Iudaeus in Lege, ex quo est sine gratia, nihil est. Iudaee perfide, Legem habes in manu, sed nisi habeas virtutem operativam, frustra putas, te Legem habere. Ideo per Legem nemo salvatur.
Translation:
Thus, however much a Jew may glory in the Law, since he is without grace, it amounts to nothing. Perfidious Jew, you have the Law in your hand, but unless you have the operative power [of grace], you think in vain that you possess the Law. Therefore, no one is saved through the Law.
5.7 — The Jew Cannot Understand the Word
Context: Discussing the divine Word as the principle by which all things are known. Bonaventure contrasts Christian understanding with Jewish incapacity to comprehend the Trinity.
Latin:
Si igitur intelligis Verbum, intelligis omnia scibilia. Iudaeus autem hoc intelligere non potest; et tamen Scriptura dicit: Dixit Deus: fiat lux; et iterum: Dixit Deus, hoc est Verbum genuit.
Translation:
If therefore you understand the Word, you understand all knowable things. But the Jew cannot understand this; and yet Scripture says: ‘God said: let there be light’; and again: ‘God said,’ that is, [the Father] begot the Word.
5.8 — The Jews Misread the Messianic Psalms
Context: On Psalm 44 (‘Fairer in beauty’), which the Jews apply to Solomon rather than to Christ. Bonaventure corrects this misreading.
Latin:
Iudaei accipiunt de Salomone quod de Christo dicitur in Psalmo: Speciosus forma prae filiis hominum, diffusa est gratia in labiis tuis; non fuit Salomon talis.
Translation:
The Jews take for Solomon what is said of Christ in the Psalm: ‘Fairer in beauty than the sons of men, grace is poured upon your lips’; Solomon was not such a one.
5.9 — A Jew‘s Question About the Trinity, and Its Refutation
Context: A Jew poses a mocking question about why God’s Son has no wife, and Bonaventure responds that the Jew misunderstands the spiritual generation involved.
Latin:
Dixit quidam Iudaeus: Vos dicitis, quod Deus habet filium, quare non datis ei uxorem? — Isti Iudaei vilissime intelligunt. Deus Pater habet Verbum et Spiritum sanctum.
Translation:
A certain Jew said: ‘You say that God has a son — why do you not give him a wife?’ — These Jews understand in the most base manner. God the Father has the Word and the Holy Spirit.
Latin:
Sed Iudaeus errat, qui pedestri modo credit sentire de hoc.
Translation:
But the Jew errs, who thinks he can understand this in a pedestrian way.
5.10 — The Jews Mock Christians on the Sabbath
Context: On the Christian Sunday as a replacement for the Sabbath. Bonaventure reports the Jewish argument that Christians observe the wrong day.
Latin:
Sed Iudaei insultant nobis et dicunt: vos tenetis decalogum, et decalogus non habuit nisi praecepta moralia; morale autem necessitatem habuit pro omni tempore. Septima autem dies… dicitur dies saturni; et vos vacatis die dominica pro die Sabbati.
Translation:
But the Jews mock us and say: ‘You hold to the Decalogue, and the Decalogue contained only moral precepts; but a moral precept has binding force for all time. The seventh day… is called the day of Saturn; and yet you rest on Sunday in place of the Sabbath.’
Volume VI — Commentaries on Ecclesiastes, the Psalms, and the Gospel of John
Volume VI contains the Commentary on Ecclesiastes, selected Psalm commentaries, and Bonaventure’s Commentary on the Gospel of John — the last being the richest source of polemical anti-Jewish material in the entire Opera Omnia. The Gospel of John’s adversarial portrayal of ‘the Jews‘ as opponents of Christ provided Bonaventure with extensive occasion for theological elaboration.
6.1 — The Passover of the Jews
Context: John 2:13 — ‘And the Passover of the Jews was near.’ Bonaventure notes that Jesus observed the feast according to the custom of the Jews.
Latin:
Et prope erat Pascha Judaeorum, et ascendit Iesus Ierosolynam. Et propterea ad se praeparandum descendit… Ascendit autem secundum morem Iudaeorum et mandatum Legis.
Translation:
And the Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. And for this reason He went down to prepare Himself… He went up according to the custom of the Jews and the commandment of the Law.
6.2 — The Jews Persecute Jesus on the Sabbath
Context: John 5:16 — The Jews persecute Jesus because He healed on the Sabbath. Bonaventure defends Christ’s action.
Latin:
Dicit Evangelista, quod Judaei persequebantur Iesum, quia haec faciebat in Sabbato: si Dominus aeque bene hoc facere poterat in aliis diebus, ut in Sabbato; videtur, quod Dominus ipse sibi persecutionem excitaverit Iudaeorum nulla causa opportuna.
Translation:
The Evangelist says that the Jews persecuted Jesus, because He did these things on the Sabbath: if the Lord could equally well have done this on other days as on the Sabbath, it seems that the Lord Himself provoked the persecution of the Jews without any opportune reason.
6.3 — Jewish Perfidy in Seeking to Kill Christ
Context: John 7:1 — ‘After these things Jesus walked in Galilee, for He would not walk in Judaea, because the Jews sought to kill Him.’ Bonaventure expounds the Jewish perfidy as the cause of Christ’s movements.
Latin:
Quia enim facta est per Iudaeorum persecutionem, primo insinuatur Iudaeorum perfidia ad persequendum… primo insinuatur Iudaeorum perfidia ad Christum occidendum, propter quam Dominus in Galilaea stabat et Iudaeam reliquerat, vitans furorem persequentium.
Translation:
Because [the departure] came about through the persecution of the Jews, first the perfidy of the Jews toward persecution is indicated… first the perfidy of the Jews toward killing Christ is indicated, on account of which the Lord remained in Galilee and had left Judaea, avoiding the fury of the persecutors.
6.4 — Jewish Curiosity in Seeking Christ Out of Hatred
Context: John 7:11 — ‘The Jews therefore sought Him at the feast.’ Bonaventure notes the paradox: they sought Him, but out of hatred.
Latin:
Iudaei ergo quaerebant eum in die festo; quia tunc consueverat ascendere, et ex odio quaerebant; unde subdit: Et dicebant: Ubi est ille? Non eum nomine proprio nominabant ex odio vel contemptu.
Translation:
The Jews sought Him at the feast, because He had been accustomed to go up then, and they sought Him out of hatred; hence it adds: ‘And they were saying: Where is He?’ They did not name Him by His own name, out of hatred or contempt.
6.5 — Liberation from the Blindness of Error and Jewish Infidelity
Context: John 8 — Christ’s doctrine liberates from blindness of error. The Jewish refusal to accept Christ is characterized as blindness and infidelity.
Latin:
Nobilitas autem doctrinae suae consistit in hoc, quod liberat a caecitate erroris, a servitute peccati, a damnatione mortis… Primo ergo ostenditur, quomodo liberat a caecitate erroris et infidelitatis.
Translation:
The nobility of His doctrine consists in this, that it liberates from the blindness of error, from the servitude of sin, from the condemnation of death… First therefore it is shown how it liberates from the blindness of error and infidelity.
6.6 — The Wonderful Escape from Jewish Perfidy
Context: John 8:20 — Christ speaks openly in the Temple and is not arrested. Bonaventure marvels at the ‘wonderful escape’ from Jewish treachery.
Latin:
Tangitur hic mirabilis evasio Iudaicae perfidiae, quia sic eos reprehendit et erat inter manus eorum, et eum non ceperunt; ideo dicit: Haec verba locutus est Iesus in gazophylacio, docens in templo; et nemo apprehendit eum, et hoc divino miraculo, non humano consilio; quia nondum venerat hora eius.
Translation:
Here is touched the wonderful escape from Jewish perfidy: for He reproved them in this way and was among their hands, and yet they did not seize Him; hence it says: ‘These words Jesus spoke in the treasury, teaching in the temple’; and no one seized Him — by divine miracle, not by human plan — because His hour had not yet come.
6.7 — The Jews Pick Up Stones to Kill Christ
Context: John 8:59 — The Jews take up stones to stone Jesus. Bonaventure cites Augustine: the time of the Passion had not yet come.
Latin:
Sustulerunt lapides Judaei, ut lapidarent eum; sed non habuerunt effectum; Augustinus: ‘Quia nondum venerat tempus passionis, non pervenerunt ad effectum lapidationis.’ Statim voluerunt occidere, quemadmodum illi, de quibus Proverbiorum primo: ‘Pedes eorum ad mala currunt, et festinant, ut effundant sanguinem.’
Translation:
The Jews took up stones to stone Him, but they did not succeed; Augustine: ‘Because the time of the Passion had not yet come, they did not bring the stoning to effect.’ They immediately wanted to kill Him, like those of whom Proverbs 1 says: ‘Their feet run to evil, and they hasten to shed blood.’
6.8 — The Conspiracy of the Jews to Expel Confessors from the Synagogue
Context: John 9:22 — The parents of the man born blind fear expulsion from the Synagogue. Bonaventure reads the conspiracy as an attempt to extinguish Christ’s name.
Latin:
Conspiraverunt Iudaei, ut, si quis eum confiteretur Christum, extra synagogam fieret. Conspiratio est colligatio in malum… Reversi sunt ad iniquitates patrum suorum et conspiraverant nomen Christi delere; Ieremiae undecimo: ‘Eradamus eum de terra viventium, et nomen eius non memoretur amplius.’
Translation:
The Jews conspired that if anyone confessed Him to be Christ, he should be put out of the Synagogue. A conspiracy is a binding together for evil… They returned to the iniquities of their fathers and conspired to destroy the name of Christ; Jeremiah 11: ‘Let us cut him off from the land of the living, and let his name be remembered no more.’
6.9 — The Foolish and Impious Blindness of the Jews
Context: John 18:28 — The Jews will not enter Pilate’s praetorium lest they be defiled, yet they seek to shed innocent blood. Augustine’s memorable phrase is quoted.
Latin:
Augustinus: ‘O impia caecitas! Alienigeni iudicis praetorio contaminari timebant, et fratris innocentis sanguine, non timebant.’
Translation:
Augustine: ‘O impious blindness! They feared to be contaminated by the praetorium of a foreign judge, and were not afraid of [the contamination of] an innocent brother’s blood.’
6.10 — The Hardness of the Jews When Shown Christ Scourged
Context: John 19:1-3, then 19:6 — After Pilate presents the scourged Christ, the Jews cry ‘Crucify him.’ Bonaventure applies the term ‘induratio’ (hardening) to this response.
Latin:
Exivit iterum Pilatus foras; tertio, Iudaeorum induratio, ibi: Cum ergo vidissent eum pontifices.
Translation:
Pilate went out again; thirdly, the hardening of the Jews: ‘When therefore the chief priests saw him.’
Latin:
Ave, rex Judaeorum, et hoc quidem in opprobrium; Threnorum tertio: ‘Saturabitur opprobriis.’
Translation:
‘Hail, king of the Jews‘ — and this in mockery; Lamentations 3: ‘He shall be filled with reproaches.’
6.11 — The Synagogue Is Not the True Vine
Context: John 15:1 — ‘I am the true vine.’ Bonaventure contrasts Christ with the Synagogue, which failed to produce fruit.
Latin:
Christus, quia verum habet actum vitis, vera vitis est. Sed synagoga non, de qua Isaiae quinto: ‘Exspectavit, ut faceret uvas, fecit autem spinas.’
Translation:
Christ, because He truly performs the action of a vine, is the true vine. But the Synagogue is not, concerning which Isaiah 5 says: ‘He expected it to produce grapes, but it produced thorns.’
6.12 — The Jews Will Put the Apostles Out of the Synagogue
Context: John 16:2 — ‘They will put you out of the Synagogues.’ Bonaventure connects this to the persecution of the early Church.
Latin:
Absque synagogis facient vos; Actuum octavo: ‘Facta est persecutio magna in Ecclesia, quae erat Ierosolymis, et omnes dispersi sunt per regiones Iudaeae et Samariae.’ Et ratio huius acerbae persecutionis subiungitur: Sed venit hora, ut omnis, qui interficit vos, arbitretur, se obsequium praestare Deo.
Translation:
‘They will make you [be] without Synagogues‘; Acts 8: ‘There arose a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria.’ And the reason for this bitter persecution is added: ‘But the hour is coming, that whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God.’
6.13 — The Machination of the Jews Preceding the Passion
Context: John 11-12 — The plotting of the Jews as the first of three preambles to the Passion (alongside Christ’s prediction and consolation of the disciples).
Latin:
Preammbula vero ad passionem sunt tria, scilicet Iudaeorum machinatio, passionis Christi praedictio, discipulorum consolatio. Primo enim agitur de Iudaeorum conspiratione.
Translation:
The preambles to the Passion are three: the machination of the Jews, the prediction of Christ’s Passion, and the consolation of the disciples. First, therefore, the conspiracy of the Jews is treated.
Volume VII — Commentary on Luke and the Expositio in Lamentationes Ieremiae
Volume VII contains Bonaventure’s Commentary on the Gospel of Luke and, in the appendix, the Expositio in Lamentationes Ieremiae Prophetae. The Lamentations commentary is the most concentrated source of anti-Jewish typological exegesis in the Opera Omnia, reading Jeremiah’s lament as a prophecy of the rejection and dispersion of the Jewish people. Note that all passages from Vol. VII were treated in the initial document; key selections are reproduced here for completeness.
7.1 — The Expression of Jewish Impiety (Luke 15)
Context: Structural division of Luke 15. The murmuring of the Pharisees and scribes at Jesus receiving sinners is labelled ‘Jewish impiety.’
Latin:
In quarum prima praemittitur expressio impietatis Judaicae. In secunda subditur manifestatio pietatis divinae. In tertia vero adiungitur commendatio et persuasio pietatis humanae.
Translation:
In the first of these [parts] the expression of Jewish impiety is set forth. In the second the manifestation of divine piety is added. In the third the commendation and persuasion of human piety is joined.
7.2 — John the Baptist Dispersed the Synagogue of the Jews
Context: On the annunciation to Zechariah. John’s mission is described as dispersing the Jewish Synagogue to gather the Gentiles into the Church.
Latin:
Bat Ioannes, qui synagogam Iudaeorum dispergebat et gentium varietates in unitatem Ecclesiae congregabat.
Translation:
It was John, who was dispersing the Synagogue of the Jews and gathering the variety of the Gentiles into the unity of the Church.
7.3 — The Jews Are Called a ‘Brood of Vipers’ (citing Chrysostom)
Context: Commentary on Luke 3:7, citing Chrysostom on John the Baptist’s address to the Pharisees as ‘brood of vipers.’ The metaphor is based on the viper’s supposed habit of rupturing its mother’s womb.
Latin:
Viperarum natura est rumpere viscera matrum suarum, et sic nasci. Quoniam ergo Iudaei assidue persequentes Prophetas corruperunt matrem suam synagogam… ideo viperarum genimina nuncupantur.
Translation:
The nature of vipers is to rupture the wombs of their mothers and so to be born. Therefore, since the Jews, by continually persecuting the Prophets, corrupted their own mother the Synagogue… they are for this reason called a brood of vipers.
[Bonaventure is citing Chrysostom’s Homily here, not writing originally.]
7.4 — On the Kindness Shown to the Synagogue (Parable of the Wicked Tenants, Luke 20)
Context: Bonaventure expounds the Parable of the Wicked Tenants as God’s threefold generosity toward the Synagogue — calling, caring, and granting freedom — which the Synagogue repaid with treachery.
Latin:
Benignitatem autem liberalitatis divinae circa synagogam ostendit tripliciter, scilicet in vocando synagogam ad sui culturam; in dando debitam custodiam, et in committendo libertatem voluntariam.
Translation:
He shows the generosity of divine liberality toward the Synagogue in three ways: namely, in calling the Synagogue to His own cultivation; in giving it due care; and in granting it voluntary freedom.
Latin:
Vinea autem ista est synagoga; Isaiae quinto: ‘Vinea Domini exercituum domus Israel est.’ Hanc vineam Dominus plantavit, quando in Patriarchis eos ad culturam suam elegit et vocavit.
Translation:
Now this vineyard is the Synagogue; as Isaiah 5 says: ‘The vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel.’ The Lord planted this vineyard when, in the Patriarchs, He chose and called them to His cultivation.
7.5 — The Synagogue‘s Three-Fold Injury to Christ (Lamentations commentary)
Context: From the Expositio in Lamentationes, commenting on the acrostic letter Beth (meaning ‘house’ or ‘confusion’). The Synagogue, which was the house of God, is said to have wronged Christ in three ways.
Latin:
Synagoga, quae domus erat Dei, tripliciter Christo iniuriata est: et viventem deserendo, quod intelligitur in primo; et morti eum tradendo, quod in secundo; et contra resurrectionem conando, quod in tertio designatur.
Translation:
The Synagogue, which was the house of God, wronged Christ in three ways: by abandoning Him while He lived, which is understood in the first [clause]; by handing Him over to death, which is [understood] in the second; and by striving against His resurrection, which is designated in the third.
7.6 — The Blindness of the Synagogue Lamented
Context: From the Lamentations commentary, moving from the blindness of the Synagogue to the taking away of its power.
Latin:
Postquam lamentatus est excaecationem synagogae, hic lamentatur potestatis subtractionem. Et quia duplex est potestas magnorum, scilicet resistendi et invadendi…
Translation:
After having lamented the blindness of the Synagogue, here he laments the taking away of her power. And because the power of the great is twofold — namely, of resisting and of invading…
7.7 — The Final and Irremediable Desolation of the Synagogue
Context: From the Lamentations commentary on the acrostic letter Nun (meaning ‘eternal’). The dispersal of the Jews by the Romans is interpreted as the fulfillment of the punishment announced in Lamentations.
Latin:
Hic plangit, ut dictum est, finalem et irremediabilem synagogae desolationem; quam poenam primo describit ut inflictam iuste… [littera Nun] significans subversionis ultimae miseriam, quando Iudaei per Romanos finaliter in perpetuum sunt dispersi.
Translation:
Here he laments, as was said, the final and irremediable desolation of the Synagogue; this punishment he first describes as justly inflicted… [the letter Nun] signifying the misery of the ultimate overthrow, when the Jews were finally and perpetually dispersed by the Romans.
7.8 — The Desolation Wrought upon the Synagogue by the Chaldeans
Context: From the Lamentations commentary. Jeremiah’s historical lament over the Babylonian destruction is applied both literally (to the Synagogue) and allegorically (to the Church).
Latin:
Hoc dicit Ieremias ad litteram de vastatione facta Synagogae per Chaldaeos; quod verius potest intelligi de vastatione Ecclesiae facta per homines immundos, qui, sicut Synagoga adversitate, sic subversi sunt prosperitate.
Translation:
Jeremiah says this literally of the devastation wrought upon the Synagogue by the Chaldeans; which can more truly be understood of the devastation of the Church wrought by unclean men, who, just as the Synagogue was overthrown by adversity, were overthrown by prosperity.
7.9 — Peter Was Entrusted with the Converting of the Synagogue of the Jews
Context: Commentary on the Parable of the Pounds (Luke 19). The ‘first servant’ who receives one mina is interpreted as Peter, entrusted with converting the Jewish Synagogue.
Latin:
Fuit Petrus, cui commissa est convertenda synagoga Iudaeorum; unde Glossa: ‘Primus servus est ordo doctorum in circumcisionem missus’, qui ideo dicitur primus, quia, sicut dicitur Actuum decimo tertio, ‘vobis primum oportebat evangelizare regnum Dei.’
Translation:
It was Peter, to whom was entrusted the task of converting the Synagogue of the Jews; hence the Gloss: ‘The first servant is the order of teachers sent to [those of] the circumcision,’ who is therefore called first, because, as Acts 13 says, ‘It was necessary to preach the word of God to you first.’
7.10 — The Synagogue Abandoned Faith at Christ’s Entry into Jerusalem
Context: On the entry into Jerusalem (Luke 19:5). The Synagogue‘s desertion of Christ contrasts with Zacchaeus’s reception of him.
Latin:
Christus dixit Zachaeo, ut descenderet ad humilitatem, quia opportunum erat, quod in eius domo maneret, synagoga deserente fidem.
Translation:
Christ told Zacchaeus to come down to humility, because it was fitting that He should stay in his house, the Synagogue having abandoned faith.
7.11 — ‘You Are the King of the Jews — Save Yourself’ (Luke 23:37)
Context: The soldiers’ mockery of the crucified Christ. Bonaventure interprets it through Isaiah 37 as a typological blasphemy.
Latin:
Tu es rex Judaeorum, salvum te fac. Unde et isti milites designantur per servos regis Assyriorum, qui blasphemaverunt Dominum.
Translation:
‘You are the king of the Jews — save yourself.’ Hence these soldiers are signified by the servants of the king of the Assyrians, who blasphemed the Lord.
VOLUME VIII — Opuscula Mystica, Apologia Pauperum, Legenda S. Francisci
Volume VIII collects Bonaventure’s mystical treatises (including the Vitis Mystica or Tractatus de Passione Domini), his Apologia Pauperum defending Franciscan poverty, and the Legenda Major S. Francisci. The volume yields 41 relevant hits. The mystical Passion writing is the richest source, where the Synagogue appears prominently as a foil to the Virgin Mary and the Church. The most intense language here is drawn from the Vitis Mystica, a widely circulated devotional text.
Passage VIII.1 — The Synagogue as Potiphar’s Wife
Line 29004 | Vitis Mystica / Tractatus de Passione Domini
…in manu meretricis Aegyptiae, synagogae videlicet, innocens Puer tuus sponte dimisit, magis eligens, spoliatus a carnis pallio, in carcerem mortis descendere, quam adulterinae plebis acquiescendo voci temporaliter gloriari.
Translation: ‘…the garment left in the hand of the Egyptian harlot — that is, the Synagogue — your innocent Child willingly abandoned, choosing rather, stripped of the robe of flesh, to descend into the prison of death, than to glory in temporal things by yielding to the voice of an adulterous people.’
Context: A meditation on Christ’s Passion draws on the Joseph typology (Genesis 39). Just as Joseph fled Potiphar’s wife leaving his garment behind, Christ left his flesh with the Synagogue (figured as the adulterous Egyptian woman) in choosing death over worldly glory. The image of the Synagogue as meretrix Aegyptia is borrowed from patristic exegesis but here is intensified in devotional prose.
Passage VIII.2 — The Synagogue Crowns Christ with Thorns
Line 42254 | Vitis Mystica
…vide hunc, o fidelis anima, in diademate, quo coronavit eum mater sua, id est synagoga, videlicet plebs Iudaica.
Translation: ‘…behold him, O faithful soul, in the crown wherewith his mother crowned him — that is, the Synagogue, namely the Jewish people.’
Context: A mystical commentary on Canticle 3:11 (‘Go forth, daughters of Zion, and behold King Solomon in the crown wherewith his mother crowned him’). Bonaventure follows the standard medieval allegoresis identifying the ‘mother’ as the Synagogue and the crown as the crown of thorns imposed during the Passion.
Passage VIII.3 — Heretics and Unbelievers Observe Their Rites of Perfidy
Line 39799 | Expositio super Regulam Fratrum Minorum
…gentiles et quidam haeretici quandoque conventicula sua faciunt et sua profana ibi commercia celebrant et ritus suae perfidiae observant, multo dignius qui vera et sacrosancta habent Sacramentorum mysteria…
Translation: ‘…pagans and certain heretics sometimes hold their conventicles and celebrate their profane assemblies and observe the rites of their perfidy — how much more worthily do those who possess the true and most sacred mysteries of the Sacraments…’
Context: In the Rule commentary, Bonaventure encourages friars to gather for divine worship by the a fortiori argument that even pagans and heretics (‘perfidy’ here is a general term for non-Christian religious practice) hold their assemblies. The word ‘perfidia’ is used in its broad theological sense of unbelief, not specifically targeting Jews in this passage, though the term carries anti-Jewish resonance through its liturgical usage (the Good Friday prayer for ‘perfidis Judaeis’).
Passage VIII.4 — The Synagogue as Mother of Christ According to the Flesh
Line 28111 | Vitis Mystica
…intuearis regem Salomonem in honore, quem sibi mater Synagoga in Ecclesiae nascentis mysterium reverenter exhibuit…
Translation: ‘…behold King Solomon in the honor which mother Synagogue reverently showed him as a mystery of the nascent Church…’
Context: Here the Synagogue‘s reverence at the Palm Sunday entry is interpreted positively — she is ‘mother’ of Christ according to the flesh — before the contrast with her role in the Passion is drawn. This ambivalent use of ‘mater Synagoga’ (mother Synagogue) is characteristic of Bonaventure’s typology.
Passage VIII.5 — The Synagogue Once Guarded, Now the Church
Line 99914 | Legenda Major S. Francisci
…ut gregem pasceret Synagogae de Aegypto eductum; iste piscator, ut sagenam repleret Ecclesiae multiformitate credentium…
Translation: ‘…to pasture the flock of the Synagogue led out of Egypt; this fisherman, to fill the net of the Church with the multiform abundance of believers…’
Context: In the Legenda of Francis, Bonaventure describes Moses, Peter, and Francis as three shepherds of three successive communities: Moses for the Synagogue (the Exodus flock), Peter for the Church, Francis for the renewal of evangelical life. The Synagogue is here typologically prior — not condemned — but superseded.
VOLUME IX — Sermones (de Tempore, de Sanctis, de B. Virgine, de Diversis)
Volume IX contains Bonaventure’s sermon collections: 127 Sermones de Tempore (liturgical year), Sermones de Sanctis, Sermones de Beata Virgine Maria, and Sermones de Diversis. The volume yields 72 relevant hits. Sermons provide the most rhetorically charged contexts, since they are addressed to live audiences and draw on the full tradition of Passion preaching.
Passage IX.1 — Advent Sermon: ‘Brood of Vipers’ Applied to Jews
Lines 11458–11469 | Sermo de Adventu
Genimina, inquit, viperarum! Quis ostendit vobis fugere a ventura ira? … Non est Deus in medio viperarum, sed in medio filiorum Abrahae; ideo qui veri sunt filii Abrahae, sint imitatores non Adam transgressionis, sed Christi reformationis. … Sed Iudaei Christum propter carnalitatem suam non cognoverunt; simul non potuerunt habere caelestia et terrena; ideo perdiderunt caelestia, quia quaerebant terrena et Christum Dominum imitari noluerunt.
Translation: ‘Brood of vipers! Who showed you how to flee from the coming wrath? … God is not in the midst of vipers, but in the midst of the sons of Abraham; therefore let those who are truly sons of Abraham be imitators not of Adam’s transgression but of Christ’s reformation. … But the Jews, on account of their carnality, did not recognize Christ; they could not hold both heavenly and earthly things at once; therefore they lost the heavenly, because they sought the earthly and refused to imitate Christ the Lord.’
Context: Preaching on John the Baptist’s rebuke (Matt 3:7), Bonaventure applies ‘brood of vipers’ to those who reject Christ — focusing on Jewish carnality (desire for earthly Messianism) as the reason for their rejection of Jesus. The language echoes Chrysostom’s Adversus Judaeos homilies.
Passage IX.2 — Palm Sunday Sermon: The Impious Synagogue
Lines 41512–41519 | Sermo in Dominica Palmarum
Non enim impia synagoga coronavit Christum solo diademate spineo ignominiosae dolorositatis, immo super illud addidit multa alia deformia diademata opprobriosae contemptibilitatis… et quidquid honoris hodie impia synagoga contulit, in die Veneris in dedecus convertit.
Translation: ‘For the impious Synagogue did not crown Christ with the thorny crown of ignominious suffering alone; rather, upon that she heaped many other hideous crowns of opprobrious contemptibility… and whatever honor the impious Synagogue bestowed today, she turned to disgrace on Good Friday.’
Context: A Palm Sunday sermon draws the contrast between the Synagogue‘s acclamation on Palm Sunday and her condemnation on Good Friday. The epithet ‘impia synagoga’ (impious Synagogue) appears twice in close succession, giving it rhetorical emphasis. The image is that the same community that honored Christ on Sunday engineered his death by Friday.
Passage IX.3 — Palm Sunday: ‘O Proud Jews! Blinder than Blindness Itself’
Lines 23213–23218 | Sermo in Dominica Palmarum
O superbi Iudaei! caeciores ipsa caecitate, ruinam non attendentes, quoniam maioris virtutis est patienter in tormentis usque in finem perseverare et de infirmitate corporis viriliter triumphare quam de cruce descendere et ab infirmitate carnis miserabiliter superari.
Translation: ‘O proud Jews! Blinder than blindness itself, not heeding the ruin, since it is of greater virtue to persevere patiently in torments to the end and to triumph manfully over the weakness of the body than to come down from the cross and be miserably overcome by the weakness of the flesh.’
Context: Preaching on the taunts of the bystanders at the crucifixion (‘Let him come down from the cross’), Bonaventure turns directly to rebuke the mockers as ‘proud Jews, blinder than blindness itself.’ This is one of the most rhetorically extreme formulations in the entire corpus, addressed presumably to a Christian audience in the homiletic second person.
Passage IX.4 — Sermon on Synagoga as ‘Noverca’ (Stepmother) of Christ
Line 41677 | Sermo de Passione Domini
Spinea, qua coronatus fuit a noverca synagoga in crucis patibulo, et haec corona contexta fuit ex peccatorum nostrorum aculeis multiformibus.
Translation: ‘The crown of thorns, with which he was crowned by the stepmother Synagogue on the gibbet of the cross, and this crown was woven from the manifold thorns of our sins.’
Context: A sermon on the multiple crowns of Christ — the golden crown of divine dignity, the thorny crown of suffering, and the Jeweled crown of resurrection glory. The Synagogue is now ‘noverca’ (stepmother, i.e., false mother, wicked mother) rather than ‘mater’ (true mother), marking a shift in tone from the more neutral ‘mater Synagoga’ used in other contexts.
Passage IX.5 — The Jewish Synagogue as Fruitless Fig Tree
Lines 42501–42512 | Sermo de Nativitate Domini vel de Adventu
In primis duobus annis occurrit synagoga Iudaica, ex qua sicut ex ficulnea plantata in pomario Assueri quaesivit rex iste fructus iustitiae et non invenit; ideo figuraliter dicitur Lucae decimo tertio: Ecce, anni tres sunt, ex quo venio quaerens fructum in ficulnea hac, et non invenio. Quae, quoniam per Christum venientem et convivium mirabile delectabiliter celebrantem vocata venire contempsit, ideo repudiata est a Christo.
Translation: ‘In the first two years, the Jewish Synagogue comes forward — from which, as from a fig tree planted in the garden of Assuerus, this king sought the fruits of justice and found none. Therefore it is said figuratively in Luke 13: Behold, it is three years since I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none. And since she was invited and scorned to come when Christ came and joyfully celebrated a wondrous banquet, she was therefore repudiated by Christ.’
Context: A salvation-history sermon structured around the Esther narrative typologically. The Synagogue is figured as Vashti (the rejected queen) and as the barren fig tree of Luke 13, refused because she rejected Christ’s invitation. The Gentile Church takes her place as the new queen (Esther = Ecclesia).
Passage IX.6 — Sermon on Michael: Synagogue First, Then Church
Lines 105326–105334 | Sermo de S. Michaele Archangelo
Intelligendum enim est, quod Angelorum est hoc, sed specialiter Michaelis, qui fuit antiquitus princeps synagogae, nunc autem princeps Ecclesiae. Quando enim (synagoga) abundavit miraculis, prophetia et doctrina et aliis multis; tunc erat princeps synagogae et multas animas perducebat in caelum; sed post passionem Christi, quando noluerunt Christum recipere, vidit, quod nihil faceret circa eos, quia clauserant sibi portas paradisi; nullus enim intrat nisi per Christum; et ideo convertit se ad Ecclesiam, de qua multas animas perduxit iam ad caelum.
Translation: ‘For it is to be understood that this belongs to the angels, but especially to Michael, who was formerly prince of the Synagogue, but is now prince of the Church. For when the Synagogue abounded in miracles, prophecy, teaching, and many other things, he was then prince of the Synagogue and led many souls to heaven; but after the Passion of Christ, when they refused to receive Christ, he saw that he could do nothing for them, because they had shut the gates of paradise against themselves — for no one enters except through Christ — and therefore he turned to the Church, from which he has already led many souls to heaven.’
Context: A Michaelmas sermon. Bonaventure develops the idea that the archangel Michael, guardian of Israel in the Old Testament, transferred his stewardship to the Church at the Passion. The Jews are said to have ‘shut the gates of paradise against themselves’ by refusing Christ, but no further punishment is invoked here; the emphasis falls on the positive transition to the Church.
Passage IX.7 — Synagogue: ‘These Are Not Jews but a Synagogue of Satan’
Lines 38605–38609 | Sermo de Poenitentia
Ignis exarsit in synagoga eorum, flamma combussit peccatores. Talis synagoga sunt poenitentes animae daemonum cultibus prophanatae, de quibus dicitur Apocalypsis secundo: Non sunt Iudaei, id est confitentes, sed sunt synagoga satanae.
Translation: ‘Fire broke out in their Synagogue, the flame burned up the sinners. Such a Synagogue are penitent souls defiled by the worship of demons, of whom it is said in Revelation 2: They are not Jews — that is, confessors — but a Synagogue of Satan.’
Context: A penitential sermon uses Psalm 73 (‘fire broke out in their Synagogue‘) and Revelation 2:9 allegorically. The ‘Synagogue of Satan’ (Rev 2:9) is here applied to sinful souls in general, not to contemporary Jews as such — it is a hermeneutical device equating ‘true Jew‘ with ‘confessor of Christ.’ The passage participates in the Pauline tradition (Romans 2:28–29) of spiritual redefinition of Jewishness.
Passage IX.8 — Judith as the Church; the Synagogue Now Guarded by the Church
Lines 103218–103219 | Sermo de S. Iuditha vel de S. Michaele
Iudith significat Ecclesiam; synagoga primo fuit ab Angelis custodita, modo custoditur Ecclesia.
Translation: ‘Judith signifies the Church; the Synagogue was first guarded by angels, now the Church is guarded.’
Context: Brief typological equation. The transition from Synagogue to Church — marked by the transfer of angelic protection — is a recurrent structural motif in Bonaventure’s sermons. Cf. the Michael sermon above.
VOLUME X — Tabula Generalis (General Index to Opera Omnia)
Volume X is an analytical index to the entire Opera Omnia, compiled by the Quaracchi editors. As such it does not contain original Bonaventurean text but rather brief index entries with volume and page citations. The entries under ‘Iudaei,’ ‘Synagoga,’ and related terms are nonetheless significant because they reflect the editors’ own categorization and allow us to verify the distribution of the material. 32 relevant entries appear. Selected index entries follow.
Index Entry X.1 — ‘Iudaei: Principes ad Interficiendum Christum’
Lines 126336–126342 | Tabula Generalis
Iudaei — principes ad interficiendum Christum moti sunt ex invidia et malitia, simplices ex ignorantia culpabili… Iudaeorum actio contra Christum in genere moris et ex parte ipsorum fuit mala.
Translation (Index summary): ‘Jews — the leaders were moved to put Christ to death by envy and malice; simple people by culpable ignorance… The action of the Jews against Christ was, in its moral genus and from their perspective, evil.’
Context: The index entry accurately summarizes Bonaventure’s nuanced position in the Sentences commentaries: the Jewish leaders bear full guilt (malice); the ordinary Jewish people bear lesser guilt (culpable ignorance). This graduated attribution of responsibility is characteristic of scholastic theology of the Passion and goes back to Augustine.
Index Entry X.2 — ‘Synagoga: Christum Contempsit’
Lines 23136–23138 | Tabula Generalis
Ecclesia de gentibus congregata est, quia synagoga Christum contempsit.
Translation: ‘The Church was assembled from the Gentiles because the Synagogue despised Christ.’
Context: A standard supersessionist thesis indexed here as a structural axiom. The Gentile Church’s origin is explained causally by the Synagogue‘s rejection. This is the classic displacement narrative.
Index Entry X.3 — ‘Synagoga Habuit Christum ut Concubinam’
Line 96973 | Tabula Generalis
…habuit Synagogam ut concubinam ib. b
Translation (index reference): ‘He [Christ] had the Synagogue as a concubine [ibid.]’
Context: Index reference to Vol. IV, 654b — the passage on marriage law in which Bonaventure argues that Christ’s bond with the Synagogue was not indissoluble like Christian marriage but rather like a concubinage, allowing for legitimate dissolution. The concubine image comes ultimately from Roman law and was applied theologically to distinguish the Old Covenant as a temporary, legally inferior union.
Index Entry X.4 — Synagogue Walked in Darkness Like the Moon
Lines 126345–126349 | Tabula Generalis
…distinctionem solemnnitatum a luna accipiebant, quia synagoga in tenebris noctis ambulabat et minuenda erat.
Translation: ‘…they derived the reckoning of feasts from the moon, because the Synagogue walked in the darkness of night and was to be diminished.’
Context: Index summary of the typological interpretation of the Jewish lunar calendar: the moon (diminishing) figures the Synagogue (waning in significance); the sun (constant) figures the Church. This solar/lunar typology appears across multiple volumes.
Index Entry X.5 — The Killing of Christ: Culpability Distributed
Lines 96593–96601 | Tabula Generalis
Occisio Christi ex parte Iudaeorum et ut opus operans erat simpliciter mala… Occisio Christi omnibus Iudaeis imputatur, sed simplices aliquo modo excusabantur… Crucifixores quodam modo excusabantur per ignorantiam.
Translation: ‘The killing of Christ on the part of the Jews and as a moral act was simply evil… The killing of Christ is imputed to all Jews, but the simple people were in some way excused… The crucifiers were in some measure excused by ignorance.’
Context: The index consolidates Bonaventure’s careful scholastic distinctions on Passion responsibility. Despite the imputation of collective guilt (‘all Jews‘), degrees of culpability are recognized. This is consistent with standard medieval Passion theology.
VOLUME XI — Expositio in Evangelium S. Joannis; Expositio in Evangelium S. Lucae (c. 15–end)
Volume XI is the richest source among the four new volumes, yielding 239 relevant hits. It contains an Expositio in Evangelium Joannis (attributed to Bonaventure, though scholarly opinion is divided as to whether it is his own or a student compilation of his lectures), Collationes in Evangelium Joannis, and the remainder of the Luke commentary (chapters 15 to end). The Gospel of John’s inherently adversarial framing of ‘the Jews‘ generates the most concentrated anti-Jewish commentary in the entire corpus.
Passage XI.1 — Parables Veiled Because of Jewish Perfidy
Lines 472–476 | Expositio in Evangelium S. Lucae, cap. 15
…quia hoc requirebat Iudaeorum perfidia, quibus debebant velari mysteria, secundum illud: Ideo in parabolis loquor eis, quia videntes non vident, et audientes non audiunt.
Translation: ‘…because this was required by the perfidy of the Jews, to whom the mysteries were to be veiled, according to the text: Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear.’
Context: Commentary on Luke 15 (the parables of mercy). The parabolic form is explained in part by the Jews‘ unfitness to receive plain teaching. The citation of Matt 13:13 (itself drawing on Isaiah 6) makes the Jews‘ incomprehension a matter of divine judgment.
Passage XI.2 — ‘The Reprobation of the Jews and the Election of the Gentiles’
Lines 6422–6424 | Expositio in Evangelium S. Lucae
In quo intelligitur transplantatio mori in mare per reprobationem Iudaeorum, et electionem gentilium praedictorum.
Translation: ‘In this is understood the transplanting of the mulberry into the sea through the reprobation of the Jews and the election of the Gentiles foretold.’
Context: Allegorical reading of Luke 17:6 (the mulberry tree cast into the sea). The transplanting figure represents the replacement of the Jewish nation (reprobated) by the Gentiles (elected). The term ‘reprobatio Iudaeorum’ (reprobation of the Jews) is the standard scholastic term for the collective divine rejection of the Jewish people as a nation.
Passage XI.3 — The Perfidious Generation of the Jews
Lines 7419–7426 | Expositio in Evangelium S. Lucae
Hoc autem intelligitur de Christo capite, et Iudaeorum perfida generatione, a qua multa perpessus est; de qua dicitur: Generatio perversa est, et infideles filii. Ab hac generatione Christus multa passus est opprobria, convicia, verbera et tormenta.
Translation: ‘This is to be understood of Christ the head, and of the perfidious generation of the Jews, from whom he suffered greatly; of whom it is said: It is a perverse generation, and faithless children. From this generation Christ suffered many insults, abuses, blows and torments.’
Context: Commentary on Luke 17 connects Christ’s sufferings to the ‘perfidious generation’ of Jews, citing Deut 32:20 (the rebuke of faithless Israel). The combination of ‘generatio perfida’ with the catalogue of Passion sufferings is characteristic Adversus Judaeos rhetoric.
Passage XI.4 — Jewish Obduracy: ‘The Hardening of Human Perfidy in Jewish Rebellion’
Lines 12057–12059 | Expositio in Evangelium S. Lucae
…obduratio humanae perfidiae in Iudaeorum rebellione.
Translation: ‘…the hardening of human perfidy in the rebellion of the Jews.’
Context: Structurally framing passage in the Luke commentary, listing the three effects of Christ’s ascension and Pentecost: the withdrawal of divine presence, the conferral of grace, and the hardening of Jewish rebellion. The ‘obduratio’ (hardening) theme goes back to Exodus (Pharaoh’s heart) and Romans 11:25 (the partial hardening of Israel).
Passage XI.5 — ‘The Citizens are the Jews, Who Hate Christ’
Lines 12225–12253 | Expositio in Evangelium S. Lucae, cap. 19 (Parable of the Talents)
Tertio, quantum ad obdurationem perfidiae humanae in rebellione populi Iudaici, subjungitur: Cives autem eius oderunt eum. Cives isti dicuntur Iudaei. Unde Glossa: Cives, id est Iudaei, ex quibus est Christus secundum carnem… Et quia Iudaei non tantum oderunt Christum praesentem, verum etiam resurgentem et ascendentem, ideo subdit: Et miserunt legationem post illum, dicentes: Nolumus hunc regnare super nos.
Translation: ‘Third, regarding the hardening of human perfidy in the rebellion of the Jewish people, it is added: But his citizens hated him. These citizens are called Jews. Hence the Gloss: Citizens, that is Jews, from whom Christ is according to the flesh… And because the Jews hated Christ not only when he was present, but also after his resurrection and ascension, it is therefore added: And they sent a delegation after him, saying: We do not want this man to reign over us.’
Context: Allegorical reading of the Parable of the Pounds (Luke 19:12–27), identifying the ‘citizens’ who hate the nobleman as the Jews. The Glossa Ordinaria tradition is explicitly invoked. The extension of Jewish hatred to the risen and ascended Christ amplifies the charge by making it temporally unlimited.
Passage XI.6 — The Parable Condemns ‘The Rebellious Perfidy of the Jews‘
Lines 12683–12686 | Expositio in Evangelium S. Lucae, cap. 19
Et in hoc specialiter Iudaeorum rebellium perfidia condemnatur, cum in fine parabolae subditur de interfectione inimicorum, hoc est, rebellium Iudaeorum.
Translation: ‘And in this especially the rebellious perfidy of the Jews is condemned, since at the end of the parable the killing of the enemies is added — that is, of the rebellious Jews.’
Context: The Parable of the Pounds concludes with ‘But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me’ (Luke 19:27). Bonaventure identifies this ‘slaughter’ as directed at the rebellious Jews — a reading that contributed to historical Christian violence against Jews. The passage is particularly theologically consequential.
Passage XI.7 — Judaic Perfidy as the Reason for the Destruction of Jerusalem
Lines 17553–17555 | Expositio in Evangelium S. Lucae, cap. 21
Ratio autem quare amplius non distulit, fuit propter Iudaeorum perfidiam obduratam, quae veritatem contemnebat propter velamen et umbram.
Translation: ‘The reason why [God] delayed no longer was the hardened perfidy of the Jews, which despised the truth because of the veil and the shadow.’
Context: Commentary on Luke 21 (the destruction of Jerusalem prophecy). The Roman destruction of the Temple is interpreted as God’s response to Jewish ‘hardened perfidy’ in clinging to the shadow (Old Law figures) rather than the truth (Christ). The veil/shadow language echoes 2 Cor 3:14.
Passage XI.8 — The Jews‘ Obstinate Hardness (‘Mitigari Non Potuit Duritia Iudaeorum’)
Lines 15288–15291 | Expositio in Evangelium S. Lucae, cap. 20
…dedit psalmodiae cantum, ut sic inclinaret populum illum durum; et tamen mitigari non potuit duritia Iudaeorum.
Translation: ‘…he gave the gift of psalmody, that he might thereby soften that hard people; and yet the hardness of the Jews could not be softened.’
Context: Commentary on the Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Luke 20:9–18). God sent prophet after prophet — including the gift of David’s Psalms — to soften the Jewish people’s hard hearts, all to no avail. The ‘hardness’ (duritia) of the Jews is a recurrent trope linking to Stephen’s speech in Acts 7:51.
Passage XI.9 — Stephen’s Indictment of Israel Applied
Lines 15339–15348 | Expositio in Evangelium S. Lucae, cap. 20
Et in Actibus dicebat Stephanus Iudaeis: Dura cervice, et incircumcisis cordibus et auribus, vos semper Spiritui sancto resistitis; sicut patres vestri, et vos: quem prophetarum non sunt persecuti patres vestri? Et occiderunt eos qui praenuntiabant de adventu Iusti.
Translation: ‘And in Acts, Stephen said to the Jews: Stiff-necked, with uncircumcised hearts and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you: which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? They even killed those who announced the coming of the Just One.’
Context: Stephen’s speech (Acts 7:51–52) is incorporated directly into the Luke commentary as scriptural confirmation of the pattern of Jewish prophet-killing. The citation anchors Bonaventure’s argument in the apostolic tradition rather than in his own voice.
Passage XI.10 — ‘The Execrable Impiety of the Jews‘
Lines 23701–23703 | Expositio in Evangelium S. Lucae, cap. 23 (Crucifixion)
Et in hoc execrabilis est profecto impietas Iudaeorum, quae quasi latronem afflixit cruci omnium Redemptorem.
Translation: ‘And in this the impiety of the Jews is truly execrable, which nailed to the cross as a thief the Redeemer of all.’
Context: Passion narrative commentary on the two thieves crucified with Christ (Luke 23:32–33). The ‘execrabilis impietas Iudaeorum’ formulation is among the strongest in the Luke commentary, directly and emphatically attributing the crucifixion to Jewish impiety.
Passage XI.11 — Bernard of Clairvaux on the ‘Sacrilegious Jew‘ (Vol. XI Cites Bernard)
Lines 23972–23976 | Expositio in Evangelium S. Lucae, cap. 23
Quid tu, Iudaee, qui pridie ante crucem agitabas caput sacrilegum? qui sacrum caput Christi exagitabas opprobriis, dicens: Si Christus rex Israel est, descendat de cruce? O venefica lingua, verbum malitiae, sermo…
Translation: ‘What now, O Jew, who yesterday before the cross shook your sacrilegious head? You who were agitating the sacred head of Christ with insults, saying: If Christ is king of Israel, let him come down from the cross? O poisonous tongue, word of malice, speech…’
Context: This direct second-person address (‘What, O Jew…’) is explicitly attributed to Bernard of Clairvaux in the text. The intensity of the address — ‘sacrilegious head,’ ‘poisonous tongue’ — represents the extreme end of the homiletic Adversus Judaeos tradition. Bonaventure incorporates it approvingly into his Luke commentary.
Passage XI.12 — John Commentary: Jewish Perfidy as Reason for Parables
Lines 472–476 | Expositio in Evangelium S. Joannis
…quia hoc requirebat Iudaeorum perfidia, quibus debebant velari mysteria.
Translation: ‘…because this was demanded by the perfidy of the Jews, to whom the mysteries were to be veiled.’
Context: Opening of the John commentary; see Luke passage XI.1 above for fuller context.
Passage XI.13 — The Blind Man (John 9): Pharisees’ Blindness Exposed
Lines 47427–47445 | Expositio in Evangelium S. Joannis, cap. 9
Item caecitas sive ignorantia ex superbia et contemptu aggravat peccatum, qualis erat istorum caecitas. …Et patet ex dictis, quia Pharisaei superbi contemnebant et condemnabant caecum mendicum illuminatum… superborum et praesumptuosorum caecitatem.
Translation: ‘Likewise blindness or ignorance from pride and contempt aggravates sin, such as was the blindness of these men. …And it is evident from what has been said that the proud Pharisees despised and condemned the illuminated blind beggar… the blindness of the proud and presumptuous.’
Context: Extended commentary on John 9 (the man born blind). The Pharisees’ refusal to accept the miracle is attributed to pride-generated blindness — a spiritual caecitas that aggravates their guilt. The passage provides one of the fullest treatments of the ‘blindness’ motif in Bonaventure’s John commentary.
Passage XI.14 — John Commentary: ‘Non glorientur Iudaei quasi praevaluerint’
Lines 48003–48005 | Expositio in Evangelium S. Joannis, cap. 10
Unde Augustinus: Non glorientur Iudaei, quasi praevaluerint: ipse ponit animam suam.
Translation: ‘Hence Augustine: Let not the Jews boast as though they had prevailed: he lays down his own soul.’
Context: Commentary on John 10:18 (‘No one takes my life from me, I lay it down myself’). Augustine’s formulation is cited to deny Jewish agency in the crucifixion: Christ died voluntarily, so the Jews cannot claim a victory over him. The passage is apologetic rather than purely polemical.
Passage XI.15 — John Commentary: Synagogue Figures Synagogue in John’s Resurrection Narrative
Lines 61561–61571 | Expositio in Evangelium S. Joannis, cap. 20
Gregorius: Per Ioannem Synagoga signatur, per Petrum Ecclesia: et ipsa Synagoga prius prophetas audierit et viderit.
Translation: ‘Gregory: Through John the Synagogue is signified, through Peter the Church: and the Synagogue itself had first heard and seen the prophets.’
Context: Commentary on John 20:3–10 (Peter and the beloved disciple run to the tomb). Bonaventure cites Gregory the Great’s classic allegorization: John (who arrives first but waits) = Synagogue (which received the prophets first but yielded precedence); Peter (who enters first) = Church (which enters into the full faith). The Synagogue is here treated with dignified ambivalence: she had genuine priority but was superseded.
Source. Internet Archive – Translated by Claude.AI. Bonaventure, Opera Omnia (Quaracchi Edition). Paris. 1864.