Article 6: Cassiodorus, Fulgentius, and the Witness of the Latin Fathers
(Drawing on insights from “In Defense of the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7” by C. H. Pappas ThM and “A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8” by Michael Maynard M.L.S.)
For centuries, one of the most persistent contentions over the text of the New Testament has centered on 1 John 5:7, a verse that explicitly names the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit as “three that bear record in heaven.” While modern critical editions of the Greek text often omit this reading, known as the Comma Johanneum, the Latin tradition has steadfastly preserved it. Scholars who argue for its authenticity routinely cite the testimony of multiple Latin Fathers who upheld or quoted the Comma. Among these, Cassiodorus (c. 485–585 AD) and Fulgentius of Ruspe (c. 462–527 AD) stand out for their clarity, theological insight, and influence on the Western Church.
In this sixth article of our series, we will explore how Cassiodorus and Fulgentius contribute to the overall defense of 1 John 5:7 as an original or very early reading of the Johannine Epistle. Both men, building on a Western tradition that included earlier figures (Tertullian, Cyprian, Priscillian) and was perpetuated by Jerome’s Vulgate, help illustrate how the Comma was not merely an isolated textual curiosity but an integral part of Latin exegesis and Trinitarian defense. Our discussion relies on the robust research presented in “In Defense of the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7” by C. H. Pappas ThM as well as “A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8” by Michael Maynard M.L.S., both of which document and analyze the influence of Cassiodorus, Fulgentius, and other Latin Fathers in preserving the Comma Johanneum.
1. Context: The Latin Fathers and 1 John 5:7
1.1 The Legacy of Western Testimony
Prior articles have shown that the earliest potential witnesses to the Comma Johanneum often hail from the Latin-speaking church. We saw how Tertullian and Cyprian offered suggestive if not always explicit allusions, Priscillian quoted a form of the Comma in his Liber Apologeticus, and Jerome arguably restored the reading in his Vulgate. By the fifth and sixth centuries, references to 1 John 5:7 in the Latin world had multiplied, leaving a deep imprint on how Western theologians approached 1 John.
Michael Maynard, in A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8, underscores that when patristic figures quote a text in ways that match the Comma, it suggests that the reading was well-established in the manuscripts they used. Such quotations function as historical anchors: if Cassiodorus or Fulgentius drew on the Comma for doctrinal argument, they must have considered it authoritative scripture rather than a marginal note or novelty.
1.2 Why Cassiodorus and Fulgentius Matter
Cassiodorus was a statesman, historian, and theologian who helped transmit classical knowledge and Christian doctrine during a time often considered precarious for literacy and scholarship in the West (the twilight of the Western Roman Empire). Fulgentius, a bishop in North Africa, actively confronted Arian and semi-Arian controversies, echoing the stance of earlier figures like Augustine and Victor of Vita in emphasizing a fully Trinitarian reading of Scripture. Both men drew on the Latin biblical text to fortify their theological positions. Their consistent usage or citation of 1 John 5:7 further cements the notion that by the sixth century, the Comma was widely embraced in the Latin world as part of the canonical text.
2. Cassiodorus (c. 485–585 AD): Scholar and Preserver of Tradition
2.1 A Life at the Intersection of Politics and Theology
Flavius Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator—commonly known as Cassiodorus—occupied an unusual station as both a public official under the Ostrogothic kingdom in Italy and a devoted Christian scholar. Born around 485 AD, he lived through the collapse of Roman authority in the West, seeing the uneasy transitions to Ostrogothic rule. Later in life, he founded the Vivarium monastery (around 540 AD), intending it to be a center of Christian learning. According to “A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8” by Michael Maynard, Cassiodorus was instrumental in collecting, preserving, and transmitting a wide array of biblical and classical texts, ensuring that Scriptural study remained a focal point in an era often depicted as the “Dark Ages.”
2.2 Cassiodorus’s Use of 1 John 5:7
Cassiodorus’s exegetical work, especially his Complexiones in Epistolas Apostolorum (sometimes referred to as commentaries or summaries on the apostolic letters), reveals his familiarity with the Comma Johanneum. C. H. Pappas, in In Defense of the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7, points out that Cassiodorus cites or alludes to 1 John 5:7 in discussing the Trinity. For Cassiodorus, the verse is not merely an aside; it is central to showing the unity of the Godhead, consistent with the tradition shaped by previous Latin Fathers and Jerome’s Vulgate.
When he discusses passages in 1 John 5, Cassiodorus presents a standard reading that mirrors what we see in other Latin writers: the three heavenly witnesses stand as the Father, the Son (or “the Word”), and the Holy Spirit. He explicitly contrasts these with the three earthly witnesses (the Spirit, the water, the blood). This alignment demonstrates that Cassiodorus read 1 John 5:7 as a distinct verse separate from verse 8, supporting the notion that by his time, many Latin copies had a stable reading that matches the Comma.
2.3 Significance of Cassiodorus’s Scholarly Influence
Cassiodorus’s role in founding Vivarium and championing the copying of biblical and patristic manuscripts had long-lasting effects on Western monastic scholarship. If he believed 1 John 5:7 was genuine and included it in the texts circulated under his oversight, that alone would contribute to the Comma’s continued preservation in medieval Latin Bibles. As Maynard underscores, once a text is deeply embedded in monastic copying traditions, it can endure for centuries with minimal challenge.
Additionally, Cassiodorus’s recognized authority as both a Roman statesman and Christian teacher conferred legitimacy upon the reading. Even if future generations encountered Greek manuscripts lacking 1 John 5:7, they would have to reconcile that discrepancy with Cassiodorus’s endorsement of the verse. In that sense, Cassiodorus functioned as one of the many “custodians” who ensured 1 John 5:7 was not just a marginal note but part of mainstream Latin orthodoxy.
3. Fulgentius of Ruspe (c. 462–527 AD): Defender of Nicene Orthodoxy
3.1 Background and Theological Conflicts
Fulgentius of Ruspe served as a bishop in North Africa during a period fraught with theological and political turmoil. In the late fifth and early sixth centuries, North Africa remained partly under the sway of Vandal rulers who adhered to Arian or semi-Arian positions. This religious environment demanded that Catholic bishops robustly defend the full equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Michael Maynard, in A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8, documents how Fulgentius wrote extensively against Arian doctrines. His works frequently cite the biblical foundation for consubstantial Trinitarianism. In Responsio contra Arianos (also known as an answer or treatise against Arian heresies), Fulgentius defends the co-eternity and unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There, and in related writings, he provides one of the most direct patristic uses of 1 John 5:7.
3.2 Fulgentius’s Citations of the Comma
Fulgentius does not hesitate to quote 1 John 5:7 verbatim in support of his argument that the divine persons are “one God” in substance. According to C. H. Pappas in In Defense of the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7, Fulgentius aligns 1 John 5:7 with John 10:30 (“I and the Father are one”) and other key proof-texts to demonstrate the Son’s co-equal divinity with the Father. By referencing “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one,” Fulgentius effectively leverages the Comma’s phrasing to disarm Arian contentions that saw the Son as ontologically lesser.
One statement commonly attributed to Fulgentius goes roughly as follows: “And therefore John the Evangelist says, ‘and these three are one,’ that we may know that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit have one and the same divinity.” Critics might suggest this is only an interpretation of verse 8, but Fulgentius is explicit about linking these words to the heavenly triad. The language used—“the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit”—is distinct from the earthly triad of “spirit, water, and blood” in verse 8. Hence, there is little doubt Fulgentius recognized 1 John 5:7 as a separate statement.
3.3 Confronting Arianism and Preserving the Comma
Arians typically taught that the Son was subordinate or created, an idea that any robust reading of the Comma in 1 John 5:7 would seemingly contradict. Fulgentius’s deliberate use of the verse underscores the idea that, for him, it was not merely a convenient text but a scriptural bedrock. As “In Defense of the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7” highlights, Fulgentius’s works were widely circulated in North Africa and parts of Italy, influencing how Catholic theologians consolidated their positions against Arian infiltration.
Because the church in North Africa had a rich legacy of biblical scholarship (including Tertullian, Cyprian, and Augustine), Fulgentius drew on that inheritance. He found in 1 John 5:7 a powerful bulwark for Nicene orthodoxy. The more he quoted it, the more subsequent scribes and bishops would internalize it as normative. By the time the Vandal threat receded, the reading had become the standard for Catholic orthodoxy in North Africa, placing Arian-leaning scribes in the minority.
4. A Broader Pattern in the Latin Fathers
4.1 Consistency From Cyprian to Fulgentius
By examining Cassiodorus and Fulgentius, we see a consistency that extends back to Cyprian in the third century and Priscillian in the fourth: a significant contingent of Latin-speaking theologians cited or alluded to the Comma. Michael Maynard organizes these citations in A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8, indicating that the verse was treated not as a peripheral gloss but as a mainstay for exegesis, especially in discussions of Trinitarian dogma. The synergy is telling: from North Africa to Italy, from the third century to the sixth, the Comma was a recognized textual element among high-profile churchmen.
This uniform usage challenges the notion—often proposed by critics—that 1 John 5:7 was a marginal or regional phenomenon that crept into a late edition of the Vulgate. Rather, “In Defense of the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7” contends that we can see an unbroken chain of references that situates the Comma squarely within Western scriptural tradition as far back as the earliest centuries we can document. While the Greek textual tradition is more sporadic, the uniform Latin witness is difficult to dismiss as a mere scribal glitch.
4.2 Liturgy, Councils, and Doctrine
Cassiodorus and Fulgentius also represent a broader pattern of using 1 John 5:7 in liturgical settings and ecclesiastical pronouncements. Fulgentius wrote treatises that were circulated among bishops and used in councils, while Cassiodorus’s works informed monastic scriptoria. This synergy across monastic, episcopal, and conciliar lines helps explain how 1 John 5:7 became so deeply embedded in Western theology that even the Reformation, centuries later, did not easily dislodge it from Latin-based biblical texts.
Church councils, especially in North Africa, frequently cited the Trinitarian passages of Scripture to fend off heresies. As Maynard documents, the Council of Carthage (484 AD) and the writings of Victor Vitensis against the Arian Vandals highlight how 1 John 5:7 was invoked as a proof of the co-equality of persons. Later theologians, building on Fulgentius’s lead, sustained the verse’s use in theological controversies. Thus, for many centuries, the Comma was not an obscure footnote but an actively used scriptural passage in official ecclesiastical discourse.
5. Objections and Responses Concerning Cassiodorus and Fulgentius
5.1 “They Were Only Quoting a Latin Gloss”
Opponents of the Comma sometimes propose that Cassiodorus and Fulgentius, well-intentioned though they were, simply inherited a Latin gloss that had already infiltrated the text, possibly through marginal notes or exegetical expansions. According to this perspective, these Fathers did not confirm the verse’s authenticity but rather perpetuated an interpolation.
Yet, as C. H. Pappas emphasizes in In Defense of the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7, both men displayed exegetical acumen sufficient to discern major textual anomalies. If 1 John 5:7 had been a mere gloss, one might expect some caution or disclaimers about it, especially given the theological weight they assigned it. Instead, Cassiodorus and Fulgentius quote it seamlessly, with confidence that suggests they believed it was genuine Scripture in line with the broader Latin tradition that Jerome had attempted to standardize.
5.2 “They Did Not Reference Greek Manuscripts”
A related objection is that Cassiodorus and Fulgentius likely relied on the Latin tradition without verifying Greek manuscripts. While it is true they operated primarily in Latin contexts, “A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8” by Michael Maynard points out that Cassiodorus, in particular, had some knowledge of Greek as a well-educated Roman aristocrat who valued bridging classical knowledge. Even if their Greek resources were limited compared to those in the East, the consistent presence of the Comma in Western biblical texts they encountered would have carried weight. They also would have known about the controversies surrounding certain omissions or variants in texts (just as Jerome complained about “unfaithful translators”), so if they found 1 John 5:7 included in the authoritative Vulgate or Old Latin line, they had no immediate reason to doubt it.
5.3 Historical Reliability vs. Modern Criticism
Modern scholars might argue that patristic citations do not override the testimony of Greek manuscripts considered older or more reliable, such as Codex Vaticanus (c. 325) and Codex Sinaiticus (c. 350), both of which omit the Comma. Yet the question remains open: could an authentic reading have been preserved in a different line of Greek tradition that later fed into the Latin versions? Cassiodorus and Fulgentius do not resolve that question purely by their citations, but they demonstrate that, from their vantage point, 1 John 5:7 was standard enough to be quoted in official treatises and theological defenses without hesitation.
6. Lasting Impact and the Enduring Debate
6.1 Bridging Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages
Cassiodorus, Fulgentius, and several of their contemporaries effectively bridged the end of the ancient world and the start of the medieval era. As these figures and their followers meticulously copied and commented upon Scripture, the Comma Johanneum entered the heart of medieval scholastic tradition. By the time monasticism flourished in the Carolingian era (8th–9th centuries), or the scholastic period blossomed (11th–13th centuries), 1 John 5:7 was firmly entrenched in the Latin biblical canon. Monks and theologians read, memorized, and preached from texts that included the Comma.
Michael Maynard emphasizes how the chain of references was unbroken. Even if pockets of scribal tradition omitted the verse, the mainstream usage overshadowed those exceptions in the West. This historical embedment explains why, in the era of Erasmus and the Protestant Reformation, removing the Comma from Latin-based Bibles generated immense controversy. It had the endorsement of luminaries like Cassiodorus and Fulgentius, not to mention Jerome and other patristic voices.
6.2 Modern Reflections on Patristic Testimony
Modern textual critics often weigh patristic references by date, clarity of quotation, and alignment with known manuscripts. Under these criteria, Cassiodorus and Fulgentius loom large because they provide explicit references to a “three heavenly witnesses” text. While a patristic quote does not by itself guarantee an original reading, the repeated and unambiguous usage across different regions (Italy and North Africa) and centuries (late fifth, early sixth) strongly indicates that the Comma was deeply rooted in the Western tradition.
“In Defense of the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7” by C. H. Pappas holds that the synergy of Cassiodorus and Fulgentius, in concert with Jerome’s Vulgate, forms a formidable triad of evidence from the patristic period. The contention is that if 1 John 5:7 had been a novel or spurious addition, we might see it used hesitantly or localized to small enclaves, not widely across the Western Church. Instead, it surfaces in major theological works, from councils to personal commentaries, always with the same function: attesting the tri-personal unity of God.
6.3 Counterarguments and the Path Forward
Critics remain unconvinced, pointing out that the earliest Greek manuscripts in Alexandrian tradition do not contain the Comma, and they suggest that no father from the Greek East explicitly cites it in the same manner as the Latins do. This East-West split, they argue, reveals that the verse was likely introduced in the Latin branch or that an extremely early scribal error infiltrated the Western textual line. While the debate continues, Cassiodorus and Fulgentius’s witness complicates any simple narrative that the Comma is an exclusively medieval phenomenon.
One path forward is to keep re-examining older manuscripts, collecting new data from palimpsests, fragments, and translations. But as Michael Maynard points out, the textual tradition is incomplete, and we may never find that perfect Greek archetype. In the meantime, Cassiodorus and Fulgentius stand as historically significant voices reminding us that for many devout Christians of the late fifth and early sixth centuries, 1 John 5:7 was simply part of Holy Writ.
7. Conclusion
The testimonies of Cassiodorus and Fulgentius add further weight to the argument that the Comma Johanneum in 1 John 5:7 was integral to the Western biblical and theological tradition. Situated at the crossroads of Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages, both men drew upon—and reinforced—a scriptural reading that spelled out three heavenly witnesses: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. Their usage was not casual or peripheral but formed a critical part of Trinitarian apologetics, especially in light of ongoing Arian controversies that threatened the Nicene definition of Christ’s co-divinity with the Father.
“A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8” by Michael Maynard M.L.S. showcases how these figures built on the foundation laid by Tertullian, Cyprian, and Priscillian, and how they interacted with Jerome’s Vulgate tradition. Meanwhile, “In Defense of the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7” by C. H. Pappas ThM underscores that their consistent citation of the Comma strongly implies it was standard in the Latin manuscripts they trusted. Their works, disseminated through monastic scriptoria and studied by subsequent theologians, ensured that 1 John 5:7 gained deep roots in Western Christendom.
Although modern scholars often highlight the omission of 1 John 5:7 in the earliest large Greek codices, the Latin Fathers remind us that textual history is not monolithic. Cassiodorus and Fulgentius stand among a line of witnesses who believed they had the original reading. Right or wrong, their conviction shaped the course of Western exegesis for centuries. For anyone examining the authenticity of 1 John 5:7, their role cannot be dismissed: they personify the earnest theological reflection of a church that found in the Comma a precise articulation of the Triune God.
Thus, the debate continues. Critics see in these Latin Fathers only a tradition that might have inadvertently passed on a scribal interpolation, while defenders perceive a faithful chain of testimonies that carry the Comma from the earliest centuries of Latin Christianity into the heart of medieval Catholic doctrine. Whichever view one adopts, the voices of Cassiodorus and Fulgentius remain pivotal to understanding how the Western Church approached Scripture and defended Trinitarian dogma—a testament to the enduring power of even a single verse to shape theological history.
