Gedol – now we’re getting somewhere. You’ve removed the veneer of a person still in the “koslei beis medrash” and put your cards on the table.
You wrote that Zucker is “considered reliable.” I did a quick search online, and i have to think you’re aware of who he was. He learned in the haskalah’s Israelitisch-Theologische Lehranstalt in Vienna, founded by total maskilim. He then taught at the conservative Jewish theological seminary (same name, just English) in the US. He was a conservative “Rabbi”
So why do we care what he says? It’s an untenable position, because the ibn ezra very often, so too speak, “argues” with chazal(again see chasam sofer and others who defend him consistently) but never, ever refers to them with anything other than rav, chachameinu, etc… he asks strong kashos all the time, why would this particular issue be so different, and why would he and he alone ever refer to chazal as anything but… Chazal. The only other example we have is the SAME pasuk, in rav saadya(which again, might have been a corrupted text- you haven’t addressed this at all. It’s missing pieces, and it’s not in the tafsir or other widely used seforim of rav saadya. Maskilim love using obscure sources to prove outlandish claims… This is just about example of that)
Also, if you think you’re able to argue with an acharon who clearly mastered shas and poskim(his sefer doesn’t require much emunas chachamim to acknowledge – it’s a veritable masterpiece) not to mention the fact that rav moshe said to defer to him over the mishnah berurah(of course, this likely means nothing to a maskil either), then i think we’ve hit an impass. You are going in your own way against the psak halacha of a major posek, without others to rely on but your own “research” into shitos that were not accepted in halacha.
It’s not just the aruch hashulchan. The fact that achronim, without exception, constantly defend chazals drashos and scientific statements should serve as a clear hadracha to you that you’ve veered from their path.
Similarly, once we have a zohar and an arizal, accepted by every group in klal yisroel, it becomes untenable to deny gilgulim and other concepts.
Unless you don’t believe that klal yisroel and its mesorah are divinely guided and it’s a hefkervelt for every person to decide these issues for themselves. In what way then are you different from the conservative clergymen you quote without hesitation, who do the same with halacha and allegorizing of most of Tanach?
It’s likewise untenable that the ibn ezra simply didn’t know of a gemara and several midrashim regarding rebbe yochanan. His perush quotes medrashim and gemara constantly. The maharshal doesn’t accuse him of not knowing shas; that’s your own insertion. You can’t put rishonim and achronim on the level of a heintigeh kanoi who we can assume would only have ad things to say about their opponents. The maharshal was mostly upset about the ibn Ezra’s arguing with chazal(though he does acknowledge the places where the ibn ezra writes “kol divreihem emes” numerous times) and his use of science/philosophy.
Re, rav