You write: “One of the main problems I see here is that EH seems to imply that the reason TR advocates embrace the CJ is because of this sort of external evidence. That is, he assumes that TR advocates are engaged in the same sort of reconstruction methodology as modern/postmodern text critics.” Though you may have inferred it, I assure you I did not imply that. I have not ever assumed that TR advocates are “engaged in the same sort of reconstruction methodology” as I am. I do see TR advocates embracing evidence when it is convenient for the TR position though, and my point here is that it is inconsistent to do so in every case. The bigger point is that the mis-handling of evidence where mis-handling can be clearly seen points to mis-handling of evidence when it cannot be as clearly seen. Your own words about GA 177 (source: http://www.jeffriddle.net/2010/08/daniel-wallace-on-comma-johanneum.html) are: “Wallace is no friend to the traditional text, and he dismisses the value of this new witness. Still it adds some weight to the argument for the authenticity of the comma.” Going from your own words, you were quick to affirm that 177 “adds some weight to the argument for the authenticity of the comma.” Except 177 is the one that was written with a verse number in a hand that signs and dates the manuscript to a (presumably) Catholic priest in 1785—well after the Reformation.
You say it’s not about evidence, but you were appealing to evidence to support it. Without checking to see what 177 was and by assuming that it would support the TR you appealed to the evidence of a priest in 1785 as if it supports the authenticity of the CJ. What I was implying was that TR advocates would do better to admit up front that the evidence is against the TR here.