Richard Carrier's Misreading of Galatians 4

"Like a Christian apologist (6-4513ff.), Casey misses the entire context of Galatians 4 and that Paul is speaking allegorically."

Alrighty. I want to point out that Christian apologists aren't the only ones who read the text this way. Nor do we dismiss context...we try to be as faithful as possible to the text. In fact this has been the dominant reading of the text until Carrier. Here's the text: 

Sons and Heirs [1] I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything, [2] but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. [3] In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. [4] But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, [5] to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. [6] And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” [7] So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God. Paul's Concern for the Galatians [8] Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. [9] But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? [10] You observe days and months and seasons and years! [11] I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain. [12] Brothers, I entreat you, become as I am, for I also have become as you are. You did me no wrong. [13] You know it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached the gospel to you at first, [14] and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus. [15] What then has become of your blessedness? For I testify to you that, if possible, you would have gouged out your eyes and given them to me. [16] Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth? [17] They make much of you, but for no good purpose. They want to shut you out, that you may make much of them. [18] It is always good to be made much of for a good purpose, and not only when I am present with you, [19] my little children, for whom I am again in the anguish of childbirth until Christ is formed in you! [20] I wish I could be present with you now and change my tone, for I am perplexed about you. Example of Hagar and Sarah [21] Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? [22] For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. [23] But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. [24] Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. [25] Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. [26] But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. [27] For it is written, “Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more than those of the one who has a husband.” [28] Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. [29] But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. [30] But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” [31] So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman. (Galatians 4 ESV)
Carrier's position is that when Paul speaks of Jesus "emerging into being out of woman", he's talking metaphorically. His exegesis is essentially as follows. In verse 24, Paul highlights the fact that being born "according to the flesh" and being born "through the promise" are allegories. Those who are born according to the promise are born to their metaphorical mother, Jerusalem from above. Therefore, when the text speaks of Jesus emerging into existence (ginomai) out of woman, it's talking about his metaphorical status of being symbolically born, it's not talking about a literal birth.

This is a tortured argument-it's funny that Carrier tries to say "well leave it to Christian apologists to take the interpretation held almost universally up until I come along on the scene."

Correct Exegesis
Paul comes out of Galatians 3 talking about how we inherit Christ's status as the offspring of Abraham through faith in Him. In Galatians 4, Paul's aim is to further substantiate that claim. If we are a child of Abraham, we are a child of the promise, and therefore an heir of God (since that is what God promises in Christ-see Romans 8). In order to secure our status as sons (and therein release us from our slavery to the "elementary principles of this world", God had to do something in order to release us from slavery. We were heirs, and thus slaves, until the date set for us by our Father. When this date came (i.e in the fullness of time), God sent forth His Son to establish our sonship. Now why does Paul add to the phrase "emerged into existence out of woman" "emerged into existence under the law to redeem those under the law"? Because he's saying that Jesus was Jewish. The only types of people who were under the law were human beings. We have ZERO evidence for any non-human figure being held accountable to the law of God. However, Jesus Himself became subject to the law in order to redeem those subject to the law. We can establish this in terms of premises: 1.) Those who are subject to the law are humans 2.) Jesus became subject to the law 3.) Ergo, Jesus became a man

Carrier's interpretation falls flat because the concept of metaphor doesn't even come into play until verse 21, long after Paul has mentioned Jesus came into being out of woman. The point of the verse 21 is NOT to say that Jesus's birth was metaphorical. In verse 21, Paul's addressing Christians who are considering bowing to the demands of the law. He uses the two sons of Abraham metaphor to expound upon a larger point; those who are according to the flesh persecute those who are according to the promise (verse 28-31). The descendants of Ishmael often ran into conflict with the descendants of Isaac; the children born according to the flesh (Abraham's failure to trust God-by purely natural, human means) persecuted those born according to the promise. Therefore, this has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus not actually coming into being from woman as a human. The metaphor is located in the context of trying to convince the Galatians to not submit to the law as the basis of our right standing with God; Christ already has, and has therefore redeemed us from it. As I said, the only evidence we have for being "subject to the law" would entail that being subject to the law is a property of humans. Ergo Carrier is a bad exegete. Or a dishonest one.

(As a side note, Paul views the law positively in Romans 7-his view has not changed. He simply is pointing out that because we fail to keep the law, we are under condemnation. Hence, Jesus redeems us from the curse of the law by taking it upon Himself in verse 13, and perfectly keeping it).