Is there a relation between Gal 4:4 and the Baptism by John in Mark?

[Giuseppe]

Galatians 4:4-5

4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship

I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with[f] the Holy Spirit.”
9 At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.

I note surprising similarities between the two narratives.

In Gal 4, it seems prima facie that, if God has to send the his Son to destroy the law and this corrupted world, surely the last thing that will be done by the his Son will be to be born "under the law" and "by woman" (meaning sharing in this world of flesh). Well: just against and despite of this apparently prima facie hope, Paul says that Jesus did just that.

Now let us see Mark 1:7-8. Prima facie, we would expect that Jesus has to do a triumphal entry in the narrative, per John's prophecies. That the last thing that Jesus will do in the his official entry will be just... ...to be baptized by the his mere precursor! Well: just against and despite of this apparently prima facie hope, "Mark" (inventor) says that Jesus did just that.

So there is there surely a midrash in action from Gal 4:4. That is the more probable conclusion.

Just as the pauline Jesus is humble by being born under the law and under the woman (=in this world), so Jesus is humble by being baptized just by the baptism "of the sins". In both the cases, the first act done by Jesus is a mere humble act. Submission just to who had to be submitted by Jesus: submission to the same Law and to the earthly woman (Agar) in Paul - a woman and a law that had to be replaced by a new law and a new woman (Sarah) -, and submission to the same baptism that had to be replaced by the new baptism "by fire" of Jesus.

[Giuseppe]

Obviously, this analysis seems to confirm that dr. Carrier is right to conclude that the woman by which Jesus was born is the fleshly Agar, in Mark. Not Sarah and not Mary. The allegory (of a birth by Agar) is deliberately embarrassing, just as the baptism by John is deliberately embarrassing: in both the cases the message is identical. Jesus has to be contaminated, as first thing in time, with this world of flesh if the his primary goal is to destroy this world of flesh.

[Giuseppe]

So, if Marcion removed, out of "docetical" embarrassment, the "born by woman, born under the law", he did so in perfect coherence by removing, accordingly, the baptism of Jesus by John. He was embarrassed by what both both Paul and "Mark" wanted to be deliberately embarrassed (since they were the ones to create that special theological- not historical- "embarrassment"): the contamination of Jesus with this world of flesh for all the time of the Jesus's permanence in it.

[MrMacSon]

born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship

'born of a woman' is condition -

born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship

[Giuseppe]

I think that the midrash from Gal 4:4 in Mark 1:8-9 allows to conclude that the Jesus coming from Nazareth to baptism is the Son "sent by God" of Gal 4:4. So he is already a divine figure and already an adult. If even "Mark" could interpret Gal 4:4's reference to a birth as allegory, then Jesus descended already adult in the original myth.

[Giuseppe]

The (allegorical not mythical) assumption of a birth and of a submission to law is requisite for the pauline Jesus to destroy both flesh and law (see MrMacSon's post above).
So also the (midrashical) assumption of a provenance from Nazareth and of a submission to baptism by John is requisite for the Markan Jesus to destroy both flesh ("Nazareth") and law (=need of a baptism for sins against the Law).

But just as Jesus is not really "born by woman and born under the law" (these things being only allegory of the way by which Jesus entered in incognito in the archontic territory to destroy it) so he is not really from Nazaret and is not really baptized by John.

John is not really the his baptizer, just as Agar is not really his mother.

That was the way by "Mark" to mask the idea of the Jesus's basic foreigness to Nazareth and John under an apparent orthodox picture.

[Giuseppe]

That the baptism by John serves only as coverage for Jesus enter in the world in incognito is seen also in Mk 11:27-32:

27 They arrived again in Jerusalem, and while Jesus was walking in the temple courts, the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders came to him. 28 “By what authority are you doing these things?” they asked. “And who gave you authority to do this?”

29 Jesus replied, “I will ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. 30 John’s baptism—was it from heaven, or of human origin? Tell me!”

31 They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’ 32 But if we say, ‘Of human origin’ …” (They feared the people, for everyone held that John really was a prophet.)

33 So they answered Jesus, “We don’t know.”

Jesus said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.”

This reflects also a historical fact. In the reality the people didn't know more that "John the Baptizer" was really Hyrcanus II (so Doudna). The origins of the legend were already obscure for Josephus, even more so for Mark. So the point of Mark is that, just as John was unknown (as Hyrcanus II), so Jesus was unknown, too.