But what of what John Gill says in his
Exposition of the New Testament? In it he writes:
"As to its being wanting in some Greek Manuscripts, as the Alexandrian and others, it need only be said that it is to be found in many others; it is in an old British copy, and in the Complutensian edition, the compilers of which made use of various copies; and out of sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephens' , nine of them had it: and as to its not being cited by some of the ancient Fathers, this can be no sufficient proof of the spuriousness of it, since it might be in the original copy, though not in the copies used by them, through the carelessness or unfaithfulness of transcribers; or it might be in their copies, and yet not cited by them, they having scripture enough without it to defend the doctrine of the Trinity, and the divinity of Christ: and yet after all, certain it is, that it is cited by many of them; by Fulgentius in the beginning of the sixth century, against the Arians, without any scruple or hesitation; and Jerome, as had been observed before it in his translation made in the latter part of the fourth century. In his epistle to Eustochium prefixed to his translation of the canonical epistles, he complains of the omission of it by unfaithful interpreters. It is cited by Athanasius about the year 350; and before him by Cyprian, in the middle of the 3rd century, about the year 250; and is referred to by Tertullian about the year 200; and which was within 100 years, or a little more, of the writing of the epistle; which may be enough to satisfy anyone of the genuineness of the passage; and besides there was never any dispute over it till Erasmus left it out of the first edition of his translation of the New Testament; and yet he himself upon the credit of the old British copy before mentioned, put it into another edition of his translation."
So what is wrong with the above quote?
- Gill lived in the 18th century, most of the ancient texts where unknown in his day.
- The Comma Johanneum is not in "many other Greek Manuscripts.
- It is not in 9 of the 16 used by Stephanus.
- It was found in 4 Greek manuscripts that popped up after Erasmus's 2nd edition.
- The "ancient" copies of Stephanus did not predate the 10th century.
- The "old British Copy" was miniscule 61, which was written after Erasmus's 2nd edition, apparently so that he was forced to include it in his later editions.
- Erasmus protested that he was forced to include it under duress.*
- Erasmus claimed the comma johanneum was not original.
- The Fathers cited by Gill were not citing scripture.
- The comma johanneum did not become established until the 5th Century.
- It does not appear in Jerome`s Vulgate(Gill didn`t know that there were revisions made after Jerome.["This passage is absent from the original Vulgate, but later found its way into the Latin text and is present in the Clementine edition." The English Bible, F.F. Bruce p.204]
- The comma johanneum doesn`t appear in the Vulgate until the 9th century.
- In the Eastern Church(orthodox) where Greek was still being used, not ONE manuscript had the comma johanneum.
- The Complutensian edition included the comma johanneum because it found it in the Vulgate, not any greek manuscript that we know of.
- In the fourth century C.E., in a Latin treatise, an overzealous advocate of
the newly framed Trinity teaching evidently included the words "in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the holy spirit; and these three are one" as if
these were a quotation from 1 John 5:7. Later that passage crept right into
a Latin bible Manuscript. It appears in cursive mss No. 61 (16th century)
and No. 629 (in Latin and Greek, 14th to 15th century) and Vgc (Latin
Vulgate, Clementine recension).
