It's probably worth giving Carrier's explanation for that passage from Bernard's site, though as Bernard notes, Carrier ignores the "Zion" reference in Rom 11:26.
Carrier writes on page 572 of OHJ:
- Paul likewise says God put 'in Zion a stone of stumbling' although anyone who trusts in it will not be ashamed (Rom. 9.33); but he is quoting scripture here (not citing a historical fact), and the context is the Torah and the gospel (Rom. 9.30-32), not Jesus. [79] Thus Paul does not mean Jesus was crucified 'in Zion' as some sort of geographical fact. Even if Paul believed he had been (as could be the case on minimal historicity), that is not what Paul is talking about here. The subject is not Jesus at all, but the old Torah law that Jews were still trying to obey, yet could never succeed at (Rom. 9.30-10.6). They are thus stumbling over the gospel's concept that faith succeeds where works fail (9.32), as God intended (9.33); but it was still Paul's hope that the Jews would be saved (Rom. 10.1).[80] It is thus the gospel that originated 'in Zion'. And even that is not geography but ethnography: he simply means it originated within Judaism.
-----
79. The scripture he quotes is a conflation of lsa. 8.14 with Isa. 28.16. Most likely Paul's copy of Isaiah had a variant reading for the latter, which had been contaminated by the former (or vice versa).
80. One might read Paul here as saying it was the Torah law they were stumbling on, but the whole line he quotes from scripture implies he means the gospel (in which Christians trust), by analogy to 1 Cor. 1.23 and Gal 5.11 (and 1 Pet. 2.7-8). See Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1975), pp. 612-14.
This is Romans 9.30 thru 10.1:
- 9.30. What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
31. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
33. As it is written, Behold, I lay in Zion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
10.1. Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
This is the Rom 11 entry on Zion that Carrier does not address in OHJ:
- 11.25. For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27. For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
Beyond Bernard's excellent analysis of how Paul is mashing scriptures together to create a new scriptural saying, note how confusing Carrier's explanation is. That isn't a one-off either. I encountered many "WTF?" moments going through OHJ, where I had to reread Carrier a number of times to try to understand what he is saying. Take his explanation above:
1. First, he makes the point that Paul "is quoting scripture here (not citing a historical fact), and the context is the Torah and the gospel (Rom. 9.30-32), not Jesus". Okay, fair enough. Paul is quoting scripture, not citing a historical fact.
2. But what Paul is saying, according to Carrier, is that the Jews "are thus stumbling over the gospel's concept that faith succeeds where works fail (9.32)" But aren't "the Jews stumbling over the gospel's concept" a 'historical fact' in itself? What's the point of saying that Paul is quoting scripture and not citing a historical fact, if the scriptures are in fact referencing what appears to be a historical fact?
I suppose, to be consistent, Carrier could claim that Paul got that idea from scriptures, i.e. Paul doesn't really know if the Jews are stumbling or not, but since he derived it from scriptures he assumed that had to be the case. Otherwise, if Paul is referring to current historical facts by citing ancient scriptures it opens an interesting can of worms.
See also Carrier's comment in note 79: "The scripture he quotes is a conflation of lsa. 8.14 with Isa. 28.16. Most likely Paul's copy of Isaiah had a variant reading for the latter, which had been contaminated by the former (or vice versa)."
No, most likely Paul is mashing up scriptures, to get them to say what he wants them to say. Paul does it again in Rom 11, as Bernard explains.
Does Carrier really think that Paul's copy of Isaiah had a variant reading that Paul reproduced here??? Seriously? Far easier to propose that Paul is mashing up scriptures to get them to say what he wants them to say.
Anyway, some additional thoughts to what's on Bernard's site. It's well worth reading Bernard's examination of this important addition to a cumulative case.