325
Izvirni znanstveni članek/Article (1.01)
Bogoslovni vestnik/Theological Quarterly 81 (2021) 2,325—336
Besedilo prejeto/Received:10/2020; sprejeto/Accepted:02/2021
UDK: 27-36-1sv.Hieronim
DOI: 10.34291/BV2021/02/Synodinos
© 2021 Synodinos, CC BY 4.0
Chris Synodinos 
Jerome’s Contra Johannem and ps.-Basil’s De con-
solatione in adversis on resurrection and disability
Hieronimov Contra Johannem in ps.-Bazilijev De con-
solatione in adversis o vstajenju in telesnih okvarah
Abstract: This paper concerns disability and bodily resurrection, the latter being a 
topic that has bemused Christian theologians from the beginning. Specifically, 
this paper concerns Jerome’s treatise Contra Johannem, directed against John 
of Jerusalem, a putative Origenist, and De consolatione in adversis attributed 
to ps.-Basil. The author of Cons. was concerned with the nature of the resur-
rected body regarding a particular class of disabled people, viz., an audience 
of lepers, whereas Jerome focuses on the resurrection of the flesh in general. 
There is some evidence to suggest Cons. is somehow linked, even if implicitly 
and indirectly, to the Origenist controversy, which primarily concentrates on 
the nature of the resurrected body. The two prevailing related themes in Cons., 
to wit, leprosy, and the flesh’s resurrection, relate to the body. It is interesting 
that the only two codices containing this work also contain Jerome’s epistle 
Contra Johannem. These two works occur again in the editio princeps (Paris 
1528). The significance of this thematic connection remains to be explained, 
and St. Jerome’s influence clarified.
Keywords: affliction, leprosy, redemptive suffering, the resurrection of the flesh, 
spiritual body, Origenism, resurrection body, garment of glory, garment of bril-
liance
Povzetek: Članek obravnava temo telesne okvare in telesnega vstajenja, pri tem 
pa je telesno vstajenje področje, ki je krščanske teologe zaposlovalo že od za-
četka. Natančneje, ta članek zadeva Hieronimovo razpravo Contra Johannem, 
ki je usmerjena proti Janezu Jeruzalemskemu, domnevnemu origenistu, in proti 
delu De consolatione in adversis, pripisano Ps.-Baziliju. Avtor De consolatione 
se ukvarja z naravo vstalega telesa glede na razred telesne okvare, namreč 
gobavcev, medtem ko se Hieronim osredotoča na vstajenje mesa na splošno. 
Obstaja nekaj dokazov, ki kažejo, da je De consolatione povezan, tudi če le im-
plicitno in posredno, z origenistično polemiko, ki se ukvarja predvsem z naravo 
vstalega telesa. Obe prevladujoči povezani temi v De consolatione, gobavost in 
326 Bogoslovni vestnik 81 (2021) • 2
vstajenje mesa, zadevata telo. Zanimivo je, da edina kodeksa, ki vsebujeta to 
delo, vsebujeta tudi Hieronimovo pismo Contra Johannem. Obe deli ponovno 
nastopata v editio princeps (Pariz 1528). Pomen te tematske povezave je treba 
še pojasniti, razjasniti pa kaže tudi vpliv sv. Hieronima.
Ključne besede: bolezen, gobavost, odrešitveno trpljenje, vstajenje mesa, duhovno 
telo, origenizem, vstajenje, oblačilo slave, oblačilo sijaja
This paper concerns disability and bodily resurrection, the latter being a topic that 
has bemused Christian theologians from the beginning. Specifically, this paper con-
cerns Jerome’s treatise Contra Johannem Hierosolymitanum ad Pammachium (= Con-
tra Johannem), which is directed against John of Jerusalem, a putative Origenist, and 
De consolatione in adversis (= Cons.) attributed to ps.-Basil (PG 31, 1687C‒1704B). The 
latter treatise, a work transmitted in Latin, was the subject of my doctoral dissertation, 
in which I argued that St. Radegundis of Poitiers (c. 520‒587) was the author (Synodi-
nos 2010). The author of Cons. was concerned with the nature of the resurrected body 
concerning a particular class of disabled people, viz., an audience of lepers, disabled, 
whereas Jerome focuses on the resurrection of the flesh in general. There is some 
evidence to suggest Cons. is somehow linked, even if implicitly and indirectly, to the 
Origenist controversy, which primarily concentrates on the nature of the resurrected 
body. The two prevailing related themes in Cons., to wit, leprosy, and the flesh’s resur-
rection, relate to the body.1 It is interesting that the only two codices containing this 
work also contain Jerome’s epistle Contra Johannem. These two works occur again in 
the editio princeps (Paris 1528). The significance of this thematic connection remains 
to be explained, and St. Jerome’s influence clarified.
The preacher of Cons., a sermon in the diatribe style, is confronted with a com-
posite task: an audience of lepers needs to be comforted and guided, but above 
all, it needs to be set straight on the involvement of Providence in their suffering. 
Moreover, this audience must be corrected in their distorted speculations on the 
state of their resurrection body as conditioned by their dreadful disability. This 
audience see in their suffering a penalty of sin, a retribution occasioned by their 
conduct, and construe their affliction not only as a mark of divine judgment but 
of divine abandonment as well. In addition, they compound their misfortune by 
taking it a step further to the level of resurrection and everlasting life, apparently 
maintaining that the affliction under which they labour in the present life will so-
mehow prevail beyond death and condition the state of their resurrection body as 
well and that they will rise as lepers on the appointed day for all eternity (Cons., 
PG 31, 1700A). Notwithstanding, there is always the possibility that they qualify 
the view they entertain on the kind of resurrection they expect for themselves ‒ 
viz., that they will rise as lepers in everlasting life ‒ that they hold it to be valid only 
if the resurrection is construed as resurrection in the flesh, and that accordingly, 
on account of this qualified belief, they have already endorsed a different type of 
resurrection theory by the time they are being addressed. However, this may be, 
1 For an excellent general reflection on suffering related to flesh, see Mensch 2019.
327Chris Synodinos - Jerome’s Contra Johannem...
detecting this subliminal meaning cued by the audience’s sentiments of profound 
dejection and arising from it, the preacher endeavours earnestly in her sermon 
to maintain a balance between alleviating pain and eradicating implicit disbelief. 
It is unclear how the lepers concluded by endorsing such a grim prospect for 
their resurrectional future or by whom or what they were prompted to do so. No-
netheless, two preliminary relevant facts can be gleaned with relative certainty 
from the preacher’s address. The first is that their distorted perception of the re-
surrection seems alarming enough to warrant the preacher’s intervention in mat-
ters of redemptive significance. The second fact is the vague reference to some 
party whom the preacher implicates in her audience’s endorsement of contorted 
eschatological principles: 
»Non te ergo dilectissime, corporis damna contristent, sed quidquid domi-
nus miserit, gratulanter et viriliter suffer /… / Novi enim quosdam ‒ maxi-
me eos qui leprae macula fuerint corde asparsi ‒ in tantum disperationem 
pro hac plaga venire, ut putent se omnino destitutos esse a domino. 
[Let not afflictions of the body grieve you, then, beloved, but whatever 
God has sent firmly and joyously endure /… / For I know that some‒clearly 
those who are dear to me, tainted as they with their taint of leprosy ‒ have 
fallen into such despair on account of this misfortune that they think the 
Lord has completely forsaken them.]« (1698A–B)2 
Here, dilectissime presumably refers to the audience, while quosdam appears 
to involve a different group. The relation and interactions between the audience 
and the unnamed party, which the fantastic interlocutor represents,3 are not speci-
fied. True, when lashing out at the fantastic interlocutor in brisk, typically diatribe 
style, indicting him on charges of arbitrary, scripturally unfounded eschatologi-
cal interpretation of the resurrection, the preacher may by gently censoring the 
audience as well by indicting it indirectly on the same charge. Nevertheless, the 
imaginary interlocutor here is more of an interlocutor in absentia than an imagi-
nary one, since, despite the indefinite pronoun in the apostrophe quisquis ille es, 
»whomever you may be,« with which the fantastic interlocutor is addressed, the 
preacher has in mind a particular group of people, possibly other than the audi-
ence, some party she knows of with whom the audience share the same affliction 
and with whose aberrant tenets they have blurred their belief in the resurrection.
Conversely, the unnamed party here typified by the fantastic interlocutor may, 
for all practical purposes, stand for the audience, whom the speaker advisedly 
2 All translations are mine unless otherwise stated.
3 The diatribe has been generally defined as a hybrid between declamation and dialogue. The most 
fundamental feature of the diatribe’s dialogic element in its fully developed form is the imaginary, or 
fantastic, addressee, a fictitious interlocutor who interrupts the speaker’s disquisition, in general as the 
mouthpiece for the common opinion, and may have a succinct dialogical exchange with the speaker. 
As a rule, the interruption of the fictitious interlocutor amounts to an objection or a false conclusion, 
stated in conformity with a set of formal features. The speaker’s reply to the fictitious interlocutor li-
kewise follows similar formal patterns. 
328 Bogoslovni vestnik 81 (2021) • 2
does not name out of compassion and courtesy in a kind of politeness strategy. 
From the meagre facts presented in this homily, complicated as they are by the 
preacher’s diatribe style, the relation of the two parties cannot be conclusively 
ascertained. What matters, however, is the twisted eschatological ideology here 
revealed: the preacher is likely aware of the fact that the corollary of such extrava-
gant dogmatics may be for the audience to persist in the idea of the resurrection 
per se while dropping that of the resurrection of the flesh in the long run‒that is, 
if they have not done so already as previously stated. For the lepers must realize 
that the possibility for the disease to spill over into the life to come can potentially 
be afforded only by its clinging on to flesh‒in this case, to flesh made eternal‒in 
other words, by encroaching on the fleshy materiality of their resurrected bodies.
Neither is it clear whether they hold their views unconditionally or consider 
them by qualifying them somehow. The preacher’s entreaty, ne velis, etc. (1699A), 
indeed allows for both of these alternatives. As regards the second of the two, the 
audience may, for instance, have already opted for some spiritual bodily resurrec-
tion after being convinced of their resurrection in leprosy if belief in the resurrec-
tion were to be construed as the resurrection of the flesh. The possibility of such 
reasoning on the part of the audience may again be detected in yet another of the 
preacher’s attempts at allaying her audience’s resurrectional fears by urging them 
to suppress their mortiferam suspicionem, their »spiritually deadly notion, laden 
with mistrust« (1700A). It is evident that in the audience’s terrified minds flesh 
made eternal could somehow be represented as affording a chance ‒ however 
slim ‒ for the disease to spread into life everlasting by feeding on their fleshy limbs 
in their resurrection status; and that the nervous shock sustained in consequence 
of this dreadful prospect could easily lead them to reject the resurrection of the 
flesh unreservedly altogether. Accordingly, it would somehow seem that in this 
audience’s case, the spillover of the disease into the next world hinges upon the 
fleshy materiality of the body and that this spillover could be checked by remo-
ving the flash from the picture altogether.
Nevertheless, the survival of the body in its fleshy materiality after attaining 
to a resurrection status is a highly-charged, controversial issue that plagued Chri-
stian dogmatics during the Origenist crisis; and the question is if the extravagant 
beliefs entertained by the disabled audience of the current sermon are somehow 
connected with Origenist views, as seems to be indicated at least at the corollary 
level. If this is so, and if the affinity claimed between Origenist doctrines and this 
audience’s set of beliefs is tenable ‒ as seems to be the case in light of the impli-
cations of such beliefs for the audience in the manner previously analyzed ‒ then 
some contextual relations tentatively identified between this sermon and some of 
the literature involved in the Origenist controversy would appear to stand on more 
solid ground. One such instance worth investigating would be the case of affinities 
between Cons. strategies and ideas and those occurring in Jerome’s Contra Johan-
nem. And this possible connection between Cons. and Contra Johannem, at any 
rate, would tend to indicate that the coincident occurrence of both these works 
in the extant witnesses, MSS Tours 281 and Caen 34 (373), may be the result of a 
329Chris Synodinos - Jerome’s Contra Johannem...
deliberate decision made by some party involved in these witnesses’ production 
based on the common ground these two pieces share in certain aspects. Such a 
claim is undoubtedly attractively plausible for MS Caen 34 (373) for one in that 
Caen is already a selective apograph of Tours, the oldest extant witness, but it can 
certainly be true of Tours itself as well and possibly of some antecedent witness 
or witnesses reflected in Tours. Furthermore, to say that Radegundis of Poitiers 
was likely reading the Contra Johannem among other sources of inspiration in 
composing this sermon seems to imply that the preacher herself may have de-
tected Origenist overtones in her audience’s interpretation of and outlook on the 
resurrection of the flesh.
Of all the scriptural figures summoned into action in the course of this ser-
mon, Job is the most prominent concerning his importance in exemplifying the 
circumstances and ideas that the preacher has set herself the task to get across. 
Job pre-eminently typifies and embodies the suffering of the righteous, almost in 
a Stoic fashion, as vir philosophicus (Cons., PG 31, 1694A), and scriptural segments 
of exchanges between Job and his wife are used to cast them both in character 
roles of lively, diatribe-like sketches. Regardless of the audience’s unknown ac-
tual choice of a resurrectional model at the time they are being addressed, that 
this choice is conditioned by their understanding of the resurrection of the flesh 
as it pertains to them and that, accordingly, their cacodoxy consists precisely in 
that understanding is manifest from some of the preacher’s appeals (1702B). Job 
is assigned an essential role in the preacher’s endeavour to refute this cacodoxy. 
He is called upon to attest to his belief in the resurrection, which he construes as 
resurrection in his flesh (1701B). Because he bears witness to his conviction while 
he is entirely in thrall to the disease and his flesh is infected, the preacher infers 
that he hoped to rise again healed and cleansed of his affliction and that it was 
precisely this expectation that sustained him in his ineffable suffering (1701A).
However, the same strategy of citing this very passage and explicating it by way 
of drawing the very same inference to the advantage of the argument at hand 
likewise occurs in Jerome’s Contra Johannem, in the section arguing the resurrec-
tion of the flesh (Contra Johannem, PL 23, 373C–389A). Nearly two-thirds of the 
ten scriptural passages cited in treating the Cons. variation of the same topic in 
the dedicated portion of this work, including the three longest ones and critical 
to the treatment of the resurrection of the flesh in Cons., namely, Job 19,25-27; 1 
Cor 15,35-38, and 1 Cor 15,42-44, occur in Contra Johannem as well.4 Of these, 1 
Cor 15 is a crucial text, fundamental to establishing doctrinal realities respecting 
the resurrection of the dead. It »contains the fullest treatment of the resurrection 
/… / found anywhere in the Bible« (Hoekema 1979, 247). The fourth section of 1 
Cor 15,35-50, from which the passage cited in both Contra Johannem and Cons. is 
derived, contains ideas that had admitted from the outset of manifold interpreta-
tions, on which fed the folly of all heretical sects in their disputes with the Church 
4 Two Matthew passages that appear to be implicitly mutually linked with reference to the common 
ground Cons. and CJ share in treating the resurrection body will be discussed in more detail later. Cf. 
also Scobie 2011.
330 Bogoslovni vestnik 81 (2021) • 2
on matters of resurrection, on Irenaeus’s evidence (Swete 1908, 93). Thus, it does 
not come as a surprise that 1 Cor 15,35-38, occurring in Contra Johannem and in 
Cons., is used in both these works in response to what is perceived as a doctrinal 
perversion of the parties addressed. 
Moreover, as regards the particular citation of Job’s passage in both works, Job 
is styled as athleta Ecclesiae in Contra Johannem (PL 23, 382A), while in Cons. he 
is said »to strip naked for his contest as is the custom among athletes« [mos enim 
est athletarum ut ad certamen nudi procedant] (1694B). Besides Job, Jerome en-
lists help from Enoch and Elijah, who were assumed while being still in the flesh, 
to support his argument against the purported Origenism of John of Jerusalem. 
Enoch and Elijah are said to be presently »inhabitants of paradise« (paradisi coloni) 
(Contra Johannem, PL 23, 381B), while in Cons., in a moving appeal to the frater, 
viz., the audience collectively addressed, the preacher urges him to become para-
disi colonus by suffering patiently in this life (1699A). True, Enoch and Elijah do not 
feature in Cons. to suggest that, like athleta in Job, the designation paradisi colonus 
may imply an additional possible link between Cons. and Contra Johannem. How-
ever, the case of such link between these works is bolstered if the occurrence of 
the designations mentioned above in the Cons. diction is not regarded as a mere 
accident but as a silent incident of subconscious recollection of Jerome’s text, pe-
ripheral to what appears to be the conscious borrowing of nearly the entire Bible 
of Cons. (1700A–1702C) from Contra Johannem for the reasons previously submit-
ted. So far, then, we have discussed Job 19,25-27, and 1 Cor. 15,35-38, the two of 
the three longest Biblical quotations, which Cons. contains and shares with Contra 
Johannem regarding the resurrection of the flesh. In both works, we have posited 
that the Pauline passage and Job’s testimony are solicited to evince the ultimately 
established doctrine of the Church on the resurrection of the dead, which is prop-
erly construed as the resurrection of the flesh. Accordingly, Cons. and Contra Johan-
nem may be said to share: 1. common doctrinal challenges respecting the resur-
rection of the flesh; 2. the same strategy in using Job 19,25-27 and 1 Cor 15,35-38 
to address issues arising from their respective challenges; 3. the same end aimed 
at, namely, resolving eschatological distortions and ambiguities concerning the res-
urrection body in conformity with the ultimately established view of the Church. 
In Cons. the lepers are promised to »put on a heavenly body« (caeleste corpus 
induere) (1702A‒1702B), with the diction picking up on the outfit imagery of the 
Pauline passage ‒ much like in Contra Johannem (PL 23, 381A). This ,heavenly 
body‘, however, that the preacher promises her lepers in Cons. is not a new body, 
but ‒ to judge from the Bible cited ‒their very same body, which, as understood 
in Job’s statement, »I shall be wrapped with my own skin and with my own flesh« 
[circumdabor pelle mea et /… / carne mea] (1701B), is shaped or transformed for 
the better: »in id ipsum corpus /…/ in melius conformari.« (1701A ). It is called 
‚heavenly‘ in that it reflects the state proper for it to enter the ‚heavenly kingdom‘ 
(regnum caeleste);5 but it is indubitably its old self ‒ extinct flesh, desiccated bones 
5 ,Heavenly body‘ (corpus caeleste) seems to be a term suggested by 1 Cor. 15.40, cited in both Cons. (PG 
331Chris Synodinos - Jerome’s Contra Johannem...
and all (1702B) ‒ revived to be converted, viz., to suffer a dramatic, enhanced qual-
itative change: in melius transformari (1702B). This change is manifested in the 
qualitatively new attribute of its resurrection state, viz., its ,heavenly splendour‘, 
claritate caelestium, an attribute also said to ,be worn‘, immortalis splendorem 
induere in everlasting life (1701B). The body that undergoes these changes in 
the resurrection is consequently time and again explicitly said in Cons. to consist 
of skin, flesh, and bones, modified for the better (1701B; 1702B). As regards the 
clothing trope referred to, immortalis splendorem induere, it must be observed 
that splendorem induere comes immediately next to immortalis ‒ a predicative 
adjective indicating the state in which the transformed person will ,put on‘ their 
new corporeal attribute, to wit, their brilliance: »you will wear this brilliance when 
you are immortal.« The textual proximity of the two notions, ,immortality‘ and 
,brilliance‘, suggests mutual concomitance, as if one is accessory to the other; or 
better still, as if this brilliance is the outward appearance of the idea or state of im-
mortality embodied. Accordingly, the ,splendour‘ which is metaphorically ,put on‘ 
must be the ,splendour of immortality‘. The attire imagery in Cons. is undoubtedly 
suggested by 1 Cor 15,53: »corruptibile hoc induerit incorruptionem, et mortale 
hoc induerit inmortalitatem« ‒ »for this corruptible must put on incorruption: and 
this mortal must put on immortality,« cited in it as well as in Contra Johannem 
(Cons., PG 31, 1702A–B; Contra Johannem, PL 23, 381A). In Cons. the resurrec-
tion body is invested with the splendour of immortality or puts on brilliance in its 
immortal state; in Contra Johannem it wears the garment of immortality, which 
bestows glory on it (381A). Notwithstanding, a close conceptual affinity in imag-
ery and key terms which is found between these two works in their respective 
explications of 1 Cor 15,53 cannot, as regards Cons., be explained by a coincident 
or spontaneous eagerness of the author to continue along the lines of the imag-
ery of the common Pauline source ‒ at least not entirely. Rather, in Cons., even if 
to some extent, this affinity needs to be considered in light of the other points of 
common interest that Cons. shares with Contra Johannem, as previously detailed. 
However this may be, a note should still be taken of the fact that in Cons. the term 
used to name the one property mentioned about a body clad in immortality as 
peculiar to it is ‚brilliance‘ (splendor, claritas), while the related term in Contra 
Johannem is ,glory‘ (gloria). However, although ,glory‘ in the Contra Johannem 
exegesis of 1 Cor 15,53 is a choice consistent with the Latin translation of Paul’s 
Greek term δόξα in 1 Cor 15,42-44 (378A), ,brilliance‘ or ,splendour‘, which occurs 
in Cons. instead, is not an inconsistent surrogate term for it ‒ especially in light of 
the general tenor of Jerome’s text. 
The distance between the gloria of the resurrection body in Contra Johannem 
and the claritas of the same in Cons. is but a step. The claritas of the body in the 
31, 1702A) and in Contra Johannem (PL 23, 379B). But the interpretation of corpora caelestia in CJ 
differs considerably from that found in Cons., except in one place in Contra Johannem, where Jerome’s 
reference seems to be to an implied »heavenly body« construed in a way kindred to that found in Cons.; 
see Contra Johannem, PL 23, 381B, where Jerome’s refers to the resurrection body as »domicilium [viz., 
corpus, supplied from Contra Johannem, PL 23, 381A] nostrum, quod de caelo est. [our dwelling which 
is from heaven]«
332 Bogoslovni vestnik 81 (2021) • 2
latter work is implicit in the gloria of the former work. No further details are pro-
vided in 1 Cor 15,42-44 respecting the δόξα of the resurrection body. Paul offers 
a better glimpse into the body’s δόξα yet to come, however, by specifying in Phil 
3,21 that our bodies will be transformed in conformity with the body of the Lord’s 
δόξα (1 Jn 3,2). Thus, practically in the same context, the self-same term δόξα is 
used, now regarding the Lord’s body (Phil 3,21), now about everybody else’s (1 
Cor 15,43). As previously stated, Jerome selects gloria for the Greek δόξα in his 
Latin rendition of 1 Cor 15,43. This is the δόξα of our future resurrection bodies.
Notwithstanding, in Phil 3,21 he renders the self-same δόξα of the original 
Greek by claritas. This is the δόξα of the Lord’s body, to which our bodies will 
conform. Clearly, in Phil 3,21 Jerome takes δόξα as applied to Christ’s body in its 
sense of ,dazzling radiance‘ or ,glaring splendour‘. Thus in Jerome’s understanding 
and terminology, the glory (δόξα) of the resurrection bodies of the righteous is 
not their own but the glory (δόξα) of the Lord’s body, viz., a glory manifested in 
brilliance (claritas), to which every resurrection body conforms. Then, since the 
resurrection body conforms to the glory of the Lord’s body ‒ which glory is bril-
liance (claritas) ‒ the glory of the resurrection body must be likewise construed 
as brilliance (claritas). Accordingly, the gloria of the resurrection body in Contra 
Johannem and the claritas of the same, spoken of in Cons., amount to the same 
property or state. Moreover, Jerome construes the brilliance which the δόξα of 
the Lord’s body is taken to be in Phil 3,21 as selfsame with the dazzling splendour 
of the Transfiguration; for albeit this brilliance, to which the glory (δόξα) of our 
resurrection bodies conforms, is not further qualified in Phil 3,21, in Contra Johan-
nem the glory of the resurrection body is likened to the glory of the Transfigura-
tion; to wit, to the glory of the Lord’s body, which Jerome construes as brilliance 
in Phil 3,21 and which is manifested as such par excellence in the Transfiguration 
episode. To be more specific, immediately following his discussion of 1 Cor 15,53 
in Contra Johannem, Jerome goes on to rehearse questions touching the Trans-
figuration in its connection with the glory of the resurrection body. In so doing, 
he links the two transformations ‒ that of the Transfiguration and that of the re-
surrection body ‒ by way of a comparison involving the link-word ,glory‘ (»Sic et 
Dominus noster in monte transfiguratus est in gloria« [»in like manner, our Lord 
was likewise transfigured on the mountain«] Contra Johannem PL 23, 381A). The 
comparison is likely intended to take the connection to a deeper level, viz., to im-
ply that the glory attending the Lord’s transfigured body and clothes on Mt. Tabor 
is selfsame with the glory clothing the resurrection body upon the latter’s investi-
ture with the, garment (indumentum, or vestimentum) of immortality‘. Jerome did 
hold that view, as documented in his commentary on Matthew: »Qualis futurus est 
tempore iudicandi talis apostolis apparuit /…/ certe transformatus est dominus in 
eam gloriam qua uenturus est postea in regno suo.« (Hieronymus, In Mt 3 [PL 26, 
121D–122A]) The likely reason for Jerome to construe the δόξα of the Lord’s body 
in Phil 3,21 as claritas, and specifically as the claritas of the Transfiguration ‒ viz., 
the radiant brilliance to which our resurrection bodies conform‒is possibly the 
fact that Phil 3,21 finds ideal application in the Lord’s assurance that the just will 
333Chris Synodinos - Jerome’s Contra Johannem...
shine as the sun (Mt 13,43). In his promise, the Lord foretells a state of dazzling 
brilliance for the righteous, and if Phil 3,21 specifies that their bodies will conform 
to the δόξα of the Lord’s body, that δόξα, whatever else it may be construed as6 it 
must be likewise construed as dazzling brilliance. For it is to the body of the Lord, 
whose »facies fulgebat sicut sol« (Mt 17,2), that need to confirm the bodies of 
those who »fulgebunt /…/ sicut sol« (Mt 13,43). Thus, Jerome’s dazzling brilliance 
is not primarily understood as that which shone on Paul on the road to Damascus7 
but that which attended Christ’s body when transfigured. 
The first of these two Matthew passages just cited occurs in Contra Johannem 
(PL 23, 381B: »Et facies eius, inquit, fulgebat sicut sol«), the second in Cons. (PG 31, 
1700B: »Tunc, inquit, justi fulgebunt in regno Patris sui, sicut sol«). They are both 
cited in the context of the discussion involving the glory of the resurrection body, 
a context that both works share. Although not cited together in the pertinent sec-
tions of either work under discussion, these two passages are mutually evocative 
and complementary in the context shared by Cons. and Contra Johannem, as illu-
strated by discussing the term claritas regarding gloria in the latter work. This being 
the case in Jerome, it is reasonable to assume that these two passages should be 
likewise mutually complementary in Cons. and that although only Mt 13,43 is cited 
in it, Mt 13,43 is somehow evocative of Mt 17,2. In that sense, Mt 13,43, which is 
cited in Cons., seems to be an indirect reference to Mt 17,2, viz., to the splendour 
of the Transfiguration. The Cons. section discussing the bedazzling transformation 
experienced by the resurrection body is resplendent with such marvellous lumino-
sity that one can think of no other episode more splendid in transcendent radian-
ce to inspire and serve as a model (Cons., PG 31, 1700B: »justi fulgebunt /…/ sicut 
sol«; 1701B: »immortalis splendorem induere«, the resurrection body, said to be 
clothed in brilliance in Cons. 1701B) ‒ even if tacitly ‒ besides the Transfiguration. 
Moreover, this uniqueness is that in a sermon in need of highlighting the changes 
suffered by the resurrection body in its transformation, the Transfiguration is the 
only scriptural epiphany that provides a glimpse into a mechanism of change wi-
tnessed and applicable to the transformation of the resurrection body.8 Such a ta-
cit reference would account not only for the gloria and claritas connection in the 
context under discussion; it would likewise explain the ease with which someone 
aware of Jerome’s terminology in Contra Johannem could shift to that found in 
Cons. and substitute claritas for gloria concerning the resurrection body as if these 
two terms were interchangeable. That they were so by the time the preacher of 
Cons. was delivering her sermon is documented. At least they were so in Hilary of 
Poitiers,9 who occupies a prominent place on Radegundis’s reading list along with 
6 Kennedy, for instance, observes that δόξα in Paul »is always the outward expression of the spiritual life« 
(1897, 463). 
7 Kennedy identifies this dazzling brilliance with that »which shone forth upon Paul from the risen Christ 
on the Damascus road« (Kennedy 1897, 464).
8 The episode involving Paul on the road to Damascus, for instance, would not meet these requirements.
9 Fierro states (1964, 86): »Hilario identifica prácticamente ‚gloria‘ y ‚claritas‘ en muchas ocasiones. Tra-
duce con ambas indistintamente los mismos textos bíblicos. Recurre tanto a una como a otra en expre-
334 Bogoslovni vestnik 81 (2021) • 2
Jerome on Venantius Fortunatus evidence (Venantius Fortunatus, Carm. 8.1.54–60). 
In his commentary on Mt 17,2, Hilary qualifies the Lord’s clothes as ‚garments of 
glory‘ (habitus gloriae) or ,garments of brilliance‘ (habitus claritatis), interchanging 
the terms ,glory‘ and ,brilliance‘ indifferently. 
In line with the references to individual body parts, their impairments, deformi-
ties, and their restoration following the resurrection ‒ thereby implying retention 
of the body’s complete anatomical structure in its risen state ‒ and as a type of 
complement to the scenes from the Book of Job, the preacher appends the epi-
sode of Dives and Lazarus in arguing her case (Cons., PG 31, 1700C–1701A). The 
citation of the dialogue between Abraham and Dives (1700C–1701A), the latter’s 
request for a drop of water to cool his tongue, and the reference to the tip of 
Lazarus’s finger, using which this drop is to be provided, also serve as a remin-
der that our bodies’ anatomical integrity is not compromised in the life to come. 
However, although the preacher’s definition of the resurrection body is entirely in 
line with Jerome’s as expounded in Contra Johannem, her definition of the ,spiri-
tual body‘ is not. Jerome defines the resurrection body in constitutional terms, to 
wit, about its makeup, as does Origen (Contra Johannem, PL 23, 378A–B), whose 
understanding of the risen body’s constitution Jerome needs to denounce while 
accusing John of Jerusalem of endorsing it. In his rebuttal to Origen’s claim, Je-
rome offers a contrary contention but always along the lines of a compositional 
principle (382B). With Jerome, the corpus spirituale that rises in the resurrection, 
the resurrection body, is not spiritual in a sense Origen construes it, namely, ethe-
real, like to the breath and the breeze; it is fleshy in its structure and compositi-
on. Jerome has the full support even of Rufinus (Swete 1908, 95‒96). The term 
»resurrection of the flesh« carnis resurrectio (89‒92), is neither a scriptural term 
nor a phrase coined by Jerome but one that was inevitably appropriated by the 
Church in her effort to outwit the ,sophistries‘ of the Docetic Gnostics »in order 
to safeguard Scriptural truth« and »to protect another fundamental doctrine of 
the Catholic faith« (89‒92). In the same context, Tertullian, De resurrectione carnis 
63 (94), asserts »resurget igitur caro, et quidem omnis et quidem ipsa et quidem 
integra« [The flesh, therefore, will rise again, and indeed the whole, and indeed 
itself, and indeed unimpaired]. Jerome is therefore replying to what seems to be 
Origen’s novelty in applying Paul’s form of words corpus sprirituale to define the 
makeup and constituent properties of the resurrection body within the context 
of the broader challenge the Church faced in forming her doctrine on the nature 
and composition of that body.10
siones equivalentes: ‚habitus gloriae‘ o ‚habitus claritatis‘. Las escribe dentro de un mismo contexto, si 
dar indicios de que alguna de ellas tenga peculiar significado. Las sitúa a menudo en paralelismo estric-
to, y emplea indiferentemente los pleonasmos ‚gloria claritatis‘, y ‚claritas gloriae‘.«
10 Origen’s use of Paul’s phrase corpus spirituale to define the resurrection body with respect to the con-
stitution of the body seems to have arisen in light of an urgency forced upon him primarily by the 
pressure of non-Christian and heretical parties to determine the nature of the risen body; see, for in-
stance, his discussion with Celsus on this subject (Swete 1908, 93); as regards deviant Christian views 
and grossly simplistic opinions commonly entertained by members of the Church on that issue, see 
Contra Johannenm (PL 23, 375C). 
335Chris Synodinos - Jerome’s Contra Johannem...
Jerome does not object to or question Origen’s reading of corpus sprituale in 
constitutional terms; he merely answers based on Origen’s definitional presuppo-
sitions in order to refute his opponent’s conclusions; which conclusions had been 
reached in part by a strictly qualified, if not fanciful, interpretation of the term 
,spiritual‘ applied exclusively to the makeup of the resurrection body against the 
tradition in which Jerome stood along with Tertullian and possibly also with Cle-
ment of Rome (89‒91). The approach in Cons. is entirely different on this point. 
As previously stated, although in all other respects Cons. fully abides by the tra-
dition in which Contra Johannem and Jerome stand for the nature and makeup 
of the resurrection body, it approaches the application of Paul’s phrase ,spiritual 
body‘ to the risen body from a completely different perspective. Either indirectly 
calling into question this phrase’s application strictly to the resurrection body’s 
makeup or by way of merely offering a different interpretation, Cons. does not 
construe ,spiritual body‘ in structural or makeup terms but interprets it with a 
quickening or enlivening principle in mind, namely, the Holy Spirit; it reads: »our 
present body is a soulish body, to wit, a body that depends on the soul, thanks to 
which we stay alive in our present existence; but that which rises again is a spi-
ritual body because it is reborn through the Holy Spirit.« (Cons., PG 31, 1702A) 
This is not an unprecedented interpretation of Paul’s corpus spirituale. It occurs 
in later patristic literature, both Eastern and Western, and John the Evangelist al-
ready points out the enlivening power of the Holy Ghost according to the Lord’s 
statement (Jn 6,63: »It is the spirit that quickened: the flesh profited nothing«). 
St. John Chrysostom speaks in like manner, stating that even in its present exi-
stence, to wit, in this present life, the body is to some extent spiritual on account 
of the Holy Spirit’s dwelling in it; but that it is not presented consistently so be-
cause the Spirit’s activity within it is blocked on account of sin so that although 
the Spirit is present, the life of the flesh is still conditioned by the soul (Homiliae 
XLIV in epistolam primam ad Corinthios; In epist. I ad Cor. homil. XLI, PG 61, 359). 
However, the earliest reading in resurrectional literature disputing the legitimacy 
of Origen’s understanding of ,spiritual body‘ in makeup terms seems to occur in 
Methodius of Olympus’ De resurrectione and with that reading of ,spiritual body‘, 
the corresponding one in Cons. shows striking affinity.11
In summary, Cons. is a sermon that belongs with the resurrectional homiletic tra-
dition, since its central theme revolves around the question of the resurrection body 
to comfort a particular class of disabled people who seem utterly mystified, confu-
sed, and deeply tormented about their resurrectional future. Cons. appears to be 
occasionally laced with verbal echoes, such as forms of words and phrases, as well 
as with units of textual structural components, such as scriptural passages, textual 
features, and keyword themes, bearing a suggestive affinity ‒ now more palpable, 
now more subtle ‒ to kindred works, primarily to Jerome’s Contra Johannem. It is 
common knowledge that Jerome’s Contra Johannem mainly engages what St. Jero-
me claimed to be Origen’s misconceptions on the nature of the resurrection body.
11 For the fact that St. Radegundis of Poitiers was highly likely perita utriusque linguae and that she could 
read Greek in the original as well, see Synodinos 2010.
336 Bogoslovni vestnik 81 (2021) • 2
Additionally, the affinity which the present study alleges between Contra Jo-
hannem and Cons. reveals the latter’s alignment with Jerome’s presuppositions on 
the resurrection of the flesh. In that sense, St. Radegundis of Poitiers, the author 
of Cons., may be said to solicit support from anti-Origenist resurrection literature 
in arguing her case against the overly bizarre views that her disabled audience of 
lepers entertained on the resurrection body when it came to the resurrection of 
their own. It is, therefore, distinctly possible that the preacher implements this 
strategy alarmed at some concrete mortiferam suspicionem she entertains, some 
affinity or connection she detects, or is aware of, between the convictions of her 
audience and a kind of mitigated Origenism. Such an affinity or connection is not 
explicitly stated or spelt out in so many words either because concrete evidence 
is lacking or for some other reason.
Abbreviations
 Cons. – ps.-Basil, De consolatione in adversis [Synodinos 2010].
 GCS – Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller. 
 MGH AA – Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Auctorum Antiquissimi.
 PG – Patrologia Graeca.
 PL – Patrologia Latina.
References
Primary Sources
Bonwetsch, Nathaniel, ed. 1917. Methodius: De 
resurrectione. GCS 27. Leipzig: Hinrichs’sche 
Buchhandlung.
Leo, Fridericus, ed. 1881. Venantius Honorius Cle-
mentianus Fortunatus: Opera Poetica. MGH AA 
4. Berlin: Weidmann.
Synodinos, Christus, ed. 2010. A Critical Edition of 
Ps-Basil De consolatione in adversis with Intro-
duction. PhD dissertation. Boston University.
Secondary sources
Fierro, Alfredo. 1964. Sobre la gloria en San Hi-
lario: Una sintesis doctrinal sobre la noción 
bíblica de ‚doxa‘. Roma: Libreria editrice 
dell’Università Gregoriana. 
Hoekema, Anthony A. 1979. The Bible and the Fu-
ture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing. 
John Chrysostom. 1889. Homilies on the Epis-
tles of Paul to the Corinthians; Homily 41 on 
First Corinthians. Trans. Talbot W. Chambers. 
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, 
vol. 12. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Pub-
lishing Co.
Kennedy, H. A. A. 1897. The Expositor’s Greek Tes-
tament. Vol. 3, The Epistle to the Philippians. 
New York; London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Mensch, James. 2019. Non-Useless Suffering. Bo-
goslovni vestnik 79, no. 2:315–322. https://doi.
org/10.34291/bv2019/02/mensch
Scobie, Chris J. 2011. A Deliberative Rhetorical 
Critical Approach to the Structure and Argu-
ment of 1 Corinthians. Bogoslovni vestnik 71, 
no. 3:411–424.
Scott, Thomas, Matthew Henry, and William 
Jenks. 1865‒1866. The comprehensive com-
mentary on the Holy Bible; Containing the Text 
According to the Authorized version, with Mar-
ginal References, Containing Matthew Henry’s 
Commentary. Vol. 3, Acts; Revelation. Philadel-
phia: J. B. Lippincott & Co.
Swete, Henry Barclay. 1908. The Apostles’ Creed: 
Its relation to Primitive Christianity. Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press.