Actually, that is the situation being claimed. I am merely throwing in the obvious in attempt to keep it honest - forest vs. tree.
Is there any reason to posit, or even suspect, that a human being would do such a thing?
Is there any reason to posit that a man would rob a store and then look right into the camera knowing he will be identified and caught? Yet it happens. Occam's razor is a lazy scientist's excuse not to think through a problem and take the easy way out of it by Assuming the result instead of discovering it. It is the seeking for a believeable answer rather than the factual one.
The simplest hypothesis that doesn’t require us to make anything up is that when a text has all the earmarks of a translation from a known second language, it is just that.
Ah, but by discounting the posibility, you are making up the notion that it isn't possible when it stands readily as a viable possibility. Again, it ceases to be a search for truth and becomes a pursuit of convenience. Human beings do not behave for convenience. Fact is, if humans fit occams razor in their behavior, we probably wouldn't need science to begin with. Nor would we need books to explain women to men and men to women.
(Just for the sake of clarity, let me say that I don’t think this evidence settles the matter beyond any possibility of error.)
And that is the entire point of the exchange! Given the possibility of error, one cannot stand by and guess and pretend it makes no difference. From that standpoint, the argument is over.
Look, bottom line is that the truth is the end being sought. And when the truth lies shrouded in myth, it is not proper to step forward and claim speculation as truth knowing that it could ultimately be a lie. Why? Because it goes to credibility and it further runs the risk of giving people bad information. We spend our entire lives acting on information. If what we are acting on is bad information then we waste our time. In physical life that isn't such a bad thing though it is still waste and folly. When it comes to spiritual matters where one's eternal soul could be put on the line, then it is manifestly wrong to play such games. The Roman church is still taking it on the chin for Gallileo - and rightly so. One would think a lesson might have been learned. But arguments such as this one prove that none has been.
When Saint Jerome did his translation, he had available to him many resources lost to us, including large pools of people for whom Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek were first languages. He went to great pains to consult with them, including Talmudic scholars and others with specialized knowledge. He got it right.
I believe Jerome also states that Peter was Bishop of Rome for 25 years.. Something that most seem to want to run away from like the plague at this point as there is no 25 year period in his life when he could have done it and fit the history written in scripture blamelessly. It's a big topic; but, if Jerome can get one thing wrong... This is the problem with quoting these guys endlessly and trying to rely on them. Eusebius is guilty of defrauding us on any number of occasions and this has been proven. This is why I have no problem knocking down Eusebius. When you pick a few apples off a tree and they all happen to be poison, you start asking if good fruit comes from a poisoned tree. Scripture says no. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. IE, once credibility is compromised, the source isn't trustworthy unless what he says can be vetted. Given that Eusebius chronicles things reported nowhere else and that cannot in anyway be confirmed, his lying tongue forgoes the possibility of taking anything he says at face value. And this is why he is regarded as a romantic fiction writer - not because he is religious; but, because he lied and defrauded himself in his own works while presuming to write a Christian history.
Anyway, I'm late getting to bed, will consider continuing this later; but, not sure there is a point left.