I remember that Philo has introduced already an allegorical reading of the term 'sons of David':“born of a woman, born under the Law,”
“of the seed of David according to the flesh,” (etc.)
The logic of Philo - or of ''Paul'' - is that:And I also admire the things which are spoken under divine inspiration in the books of Kings, according to which those who flourished many generations afterwards and lived in a blameless manner, are spoken of as the sons of David who wrote hymns to God; {44}{2 Ezr. 8:2.} though, during his lifetime, even their great grandfathers had not yet been born. The truth is, that the birth here spoken of is that of souls made immortal by their virtues, not of perishable bodies, and this birth is naturally referred to the leaders of virtue, as its parents and progenitors.
(On the confusion of tongues, 28:146-148)
1) this birth [from David] is naturally referred to the leaders of virtue.
2) the Archangel/Logos of Philo, already named 'Jesus' (via Carrier's proof of this I presume you know already), represents the maximum of moral perfection, etc.
3) therefore: the Archangel Jesus is the son of David par excellence, too.
About the clash Carrier versus McGrath, even If I deny a priori McGrath's ''criticisms'' as mere apologetic, though I think that Carrier's position, by appealing to a historical Paul (+ authentic letters of 'Paul'), becomes by definition a dogmatic, and therefore unfalsifiable, position.
The problem is intrinsic in ''Paul'''s letters, that are evidently silent about a HJ, but at the same time seem aware of a Gospel Jesus - and yes: the 2 Jesuses are not the same thing.
See Hebrews, for example. It's clearly dependent on Matthew, and yet it's defined rightly by Carrier as a ''proof-text'' of mythicism. ''Paul'''s letters are a just mix of dogmatism and ambiguity that serves anyone exactly in order to assert his position (even the most irrational) against the opponent's positions. They worked and work today as ''Ring of Power'' of Tolkienian memory: They give reason (= power) to every guy that interprets them in his own way.
I think that Carrier and McGrath are the ''human guinea pigs'' to re-built in the lab (with all the defects of each simulation) the ancient clash on epistles that opposed the heretics to protocatholics (even if docetism not corresponds, strictly speaking, to mythicism).
