Will do the other footnotes later.
Conan claimed the earliest Old Latin ms. (extant) omitted the heavenly witnesses.
Conan's error, which he never acknowledged, was why I put up this information.
The Old Latin is considered to be an early textline, even 2nd century.
You claim a corruption on zero evidence.
You seem to like to play 20 questions.
Maybe you can find the word mystery somewhere in the text.
Like I avoid your absurd translation of Cassiodorus, about “reading into” the text, against at least five translations that write sensibly of reading the passion of the Lord.Thank you for admitting you want to "avoid" the clear and simple evidence that differs from your opinion.
1 John 5.8. One might be forgiven for thinking that Cyprian read the famous 'Johannine comma' (v. 7) in his text. In fact, he was only giving an allegorical interpretation of 'the spirit and the water and the blood' in terms of the Trinity, as did several of the Latin Fathers after him (including St. Augustine), though they certainly did not read the interpolation.
Since there were about ten uses of the heavenly witnesses extant in the century before Cassiodorus, it is clear the verse would be in his Bible, and thus commentators generally accept that his usage was from the Bible.
Any theory otherwise is extremely difficult.
Are you arguing for the original Vulgate to have the heavenly witnesses, as explained in Jerome's Vulgate Prologue?
Not bad. However, if the Leon Palimpsest is considered Old Latin, based on its text in general, you can't overthrow that conclusion on a conjecture sans evidence.
Are you trying to make a third category of Latin mss. that can be invisible, neither Old Latin or Vulgate? In that case, you would have to remove a large number of mss. from the apparatus.
Invisible manuscripts and the invisible allegory.