Historical records are spotty beyond this translation -William Alleyn Evanson
8. William Alleyn EVANSON, born 1786 in Ireland, education Trinity College, Dublin - BA 1804 - MA 1828, ordination 1832 Vicar of Blewbury (Berks), occupation 1836 Vicar of Lechlade and Inglesham (Wilts), census 1841 at Vicarage House, Inglesham (Wilts), died 2 Mar 1857 at Stanton Rectory - Aged 71. He married Lyndon MacDONNELL.
THE CLERGY OF CORK, CLOYNE, AND ROSS.
Evanson, William Alleyn. I., 357. Was this Rev. William Alleyn Evanson, m.a., Lecturer of St. Luke’s, Old-street, London, the translator of “ Knittel’s New Criticisms on 1 John, v. 7.” 8vo. London, 1829 ?
Translator of the excellent writing from Knittel:Translated from the original German, by William Alleyn Evanson, M. A. Lecturer of St. Luke's, Old Street, London
Franz Anton Knittel (1721–1792),
and added his own 30 pages Intro, and footnotes.
New criticisms on the celebrated text, 1 John V. 7. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one." A synodical lecture (1829)
Franz Anton Knittel, translated by William Alleyn Evanson
In the 30-page intro, Evanson piddles around Montifortianus and other Greek ms. issues, including improper conclusions about the Complutensian, and including conjectures about whether the CP scholars saw Vaticanus..
Evanson also gave up the strength of the Vulgate Prologue by calling it ninth century rather than Jerome.
Knittel was equivocal in p. 95-97.tne assertion (which can never tie disprovea) of the Author of the ‘Prologus in Epistolas Canonicas’ in the 9th century, “that the verse in question existed in the Greek Manuscripts then extant,” and possibly as far back as the 4th century p. xvi
was it not broadly promulgated, so early as the 9th century, that the verse in question had been designedly erased
by the Arians ? p. xxix
Overall, there was a lot of emphasis on the doctrinal stances of Semler and Wetstein, connected to Complutensian conjectures of missing manuscripts. (And theories of Arian erasure, when in fact most of the Greek line dropping was likely in an earlier period.)
Evanson does actually give a solid AV preservational defense on p. XXX and XXXi.Wetstein and Semler are, in fact, the only authorities appealed to by the depreciators of the Complutensian. ... there are probably many thousand Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament in existence, which have never been collated or examined; as the Manuscripts employed by the Complutensian Editors have not yet been discovered ...
And if the test of cui bono be applied, all the presumption is in favour of omission by the Arians, rather than invention by the Orthodox.... p. xxix
Evanson was reasonable on Tertullian, Cyprian and the Council of Carthage, and some other evidences and argumentation.
There was counter by Thomas Turton:the positive, or affirmative unsuspicious testimonies of Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, the Second Symbolum Antiochenum, Gregory Nazianzen, Phcebadius, Ausonius, and the Latin Vulgate of Jerome, either directly quoting or undeniably alluding to the clause : (p. xxv)
the direct citation of it by the African Fathers at the Council of Carthage in the 5th century p. xvi
(*) The verse, 1 John V. 7, was alleged against the Arians at the Council of Carthage, in the 5th century ; and its authenticity was not disputed by the Arian Bishops then present; nor questioned by any Arian, or other Heretic, from the 5th to the 16th century. p. xxvi footnote
Thomas Turton (1780-1864)
‘Clemens Anglicanus’ [Thomas Turton]. Remarks upon Mr. Evanson's preface to his translation of Knittel’s New Criticisms on I John, v. 7. Cambridge: Smith for Deighton, 1829.
This focuses on Montifortianus and similar evidences, there is barely a reference to Cyprian, the Council of Carthage and the areal evidences that had been given some focus.
Orme waxes poetic about the Turton writing:In a critique of William Alleyn Evanson’s introduction to his translation of Knittel's work on the comma (1827), Thomas Turton remarked that if the comma could not be ‘maintained on the common principles by which other texts are established, that circumstance is of itself a strong indication that the verse is spurious’.11
11 ‘Clemens Anglicanus’ 1829, 5.
Biblical Criticism p. 282
The Eclectic Review is likely Orme, some checking could be done comparing the wording.
Eclectic Review p. 167-183 (1830)
review of Thomas Turton critique of Evanson Preface