So you are taking it upon yourself to change the rules that have always been recognized to defend your position? You are now going to change the definition of "reading" from "a portion of any of the above (manuscript, textform, or text), usually, but not always, indicating a variant in the manuscript or textual evidence."
You are the one who gave the definition on the top of page 14. So, using your definition, I have shown you a "portion of the above" that Erasmus did not have.
I called your bluff and you have been exposed. I am not desparate in the least. In fact, this is such and open and shut case that you incorrect, that it makes me laugh. You are clearly wrong and even you know that, Thomas. You don't even believe what you are saying here. You know too much. You have way too much background and knowledge in this area to continue to support what you are saying. But now, due to your approach several pages ago, the only true remedy is too embarrassing for you because now you have to admit you were wrong. And with the evidence in black and white (Or black and blue) in front of you, you will make some lame excuse for yourself.
As we all know, a "reading" is not determined by canonicity as you tried to use in post 148 to escape dealing with these readings. IF you are going to rule out "scribal errors" as readings, here are no textual variants at all, since all readings stem from a scribal error of some sort or another. You are smart enough to have thought through that. Why you are ignoring it and embarrassing yourself is beyond me. Even the most radical KVOs know what I am saying is true.
I could produce more evidence of this same truth, but you will ignore that too,. The only question is Why? Why not simply admit that there are readings that Erasmus did not have access to?