I’m pleased to pass along the news that my article, “Altered Because of Transgressions? The ‘Law of Deeds’ in Gal 3:19a,” has been accepted for publication in the first 2015 edition of Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft. Following is the article abstract:
Although the textual variants of Gal 3,19a have typically been dismissed as the result of inattentive copyists, one variant appears to be an orthodox corruption aimed at eliminating Marcionite and other demiurgic interpretations as well as an intriguing example of a Latin harmonization influencing P46 and other early Greek witnesses. This variant is thus valuable for its illumination of the doctrinal battles over Paul in this early period and its implications about Latin influence at a very early stage of textual transmission.
3 Comments. Leave new
This article is important to me due to a blog I wrote that has this text as foundational to my interpretation. But I couldn’t read your article b/c I don’t have access through any accredited academic institution, and I’m not paying 40 bux to read it for a blog comment. If I paid for every article I read that the academics write that interest me, I’d be ‘on the bread line’.
I did however find an online pdf book by Tyler A. Stewart entitled “The Origin and Persistence of Evil in Galatians”. On pp 203-6 he discusses this subject. He refers to your book in fn’s 138 & 145. He summarizes your view as follows: “145 Jason Staples suggests that the “causing” interpretation may be found in Marcionite and Valentinian interpretations of Gal 3:19 (“Altered because of Transgressions,” 129–31). The only examples he cites that explicitly mention Galatians 3:19 (Heracleon and Theodotus) do not focus on the meaning of the preposition χάριν or the law at all, but rather the role of angels.”
If that’s true, then I have to disagree with your interpretation b/c it is isagetical. I wrote a blog that includes the meaning of this verse based on THE COVENANTS. You can read it here if you want: https://b2bbiblereading.wordpress.com/2025/05/12/covenant-law-or-promise-galatians-3/ I use common sense, historical & literary context and thought-analysis to do my interpretation. I mainly look for the DESIGN INTENT underlying the author’s message, which has proven to be invaluable in Bible interpretations. Why I was not taught that in Bible college is reprehensible! Over the years, I discovered ‘through the school of hard knocks’ that exegesis is waaaay over-rated, and works mostly as a ‘lawyering’ tool for propaganda purposes (whether knowingly or not by the propaganda artists). So I use it only sparingly, although not ‘expertly’ like someone who reads the Greek and Hebrew fluently.
I believe that you need to re-think your interpretation of Galatians 3:19 to fit Paul’s context in Galatians instead of the church fathers or whatever. I do not put much weight on the views of the church fathers b/c I learned early on from studying them that they ‘went off the rails’ right away (e.g., Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp), departing from Paul’s gospel in favor of STATE PROPAGANDA. Needless to say, I view them as STATE PROPAGANDA ARTISTS who should not be relied on to understand the Apostolic or Gospel messages.
Thanks for sharing your paper. It’s interesting to read about the potential for scribal influence on the text based on ‘confessional’ prejudices. Quite a bit of digging went on to arrive at your presentation. It’s the amount of reading and sifting that’s impressive! Something I certainly do not have time or energy to do, along with the level of sophisticated analysis that went into your presentation.
I noticed that even if the ‘Latinized’ reading was correct (ὁ νόμος τῶν πράξεων), the text would still support my viewpoint that YHWH gave ‘the law’ to constrain the nation of Israel in order produce Jesus (“the seed”).
Your level of language skills and research are impressive! Like I said in another blog comment, God have given you quite the language gift that few and far between possess. I believe it’s your common sense based analytical thought process that makes your language gift valuable, compared to those who have merely the language gift.
Incidentally, it appears that Steward has misrepresented your point in your article. I wonder how that happened?