That's not what the following seems to be saying (which I'd put in my Post #578):
[Post #578 again...]
I wonder what the writer of that article (posted by Neh6--Post #480) meant by the following:
[quoting]
1 John 5:7 was in
the old Latin that was used by Bible believers in Europe. Dr. Frederick Nolan (1784-1864) spent 28 years tracing the history of the European Italic or Old Latin version and in 1815 published his findings in
An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament, in which the Greek manuscripts are newly classed, the integrity of the Authorised Text vindicated, and the various readings traced to their origin. Nolan believed that the old Latin got its name Italic from the churches in northern Italy
that remained separated from Rome and that this text was maintained by separatist Waldensian believers. He concluded that
1 John 5:7 “was adopted in the version which prevailed in the Latin Church, previously to the introduction of the modern Vulgate” (Nolan,
Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, pp. xvii, xviii).
1 John 5:7 was in the Latin “vulgate” that had a wide influence throughout the Dark Ages. The Catholic Church used it, but so did many non-Catholic believers.
Bruce Metzger observes that the oldest manuscript of the Jerome vulgate, Codex Fuldensis (A.D. 546), does not include the Johannine Comma; but this fact is overwhelmed by other evidence. For one,
we have seen that Jerome himself believed 1 John 5:7 was genuine Scripture and testified that heretics had removed it from some manuscripts. Second,
1 John 5:7 is found in the vast majority of extant Latin manuscripts, 49 out of every 50, according to Scrivener. Third,
1 John 5:7 is found in many of the most ancient Latin manuscripts, such as Ulmensis (c. 850) and Toletanus (988). The
Johannine Comma is found “in twenty-nine of the fairest, oldest, and most correct of extant Vulgate manuscripts” (Maynard,
A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8, p. 343).
[end quoting]