Based on all the available evidence and the wider Pauline context, I think that “previously written” is by-far the most likely intention of Paul here, but for now, wider acknowledgement of that as a possible translation would certainly be progress.
In this post, I will review the scholarship and the early commentary related to this translation issue. Of course, the interpretation of the verse depends on the translation, and in follow-up posts I plan to explore the interpretation in greater detail.
In terms of translation and interpretation, Galatians 3:1 poses significant issues for both an understanding of Pauline thought, as well as for early Christian origins. A non-literal translation for proegraphe in Galatians 3:1--- that is at-odds with the other 3 occurrences in the NT --- has predominated over-time and is firmly entrenched today.
The verb proegraphe (προεγράφη), as it occurs in Galatians 3:1, is in the aorist, indicative, passive, 3rd person, singular --- a past tense. A literal translation of the verb as “previously written” or “written before” is apparently intended and is widely accepted in the other 3 occurrences in the NT (Romans 15:4, Ephesians 3:3, and Jude 1:4).
Proegraphe as Verbal Portrayal
However, the verb was also used for the posting of a written public notice for an event, for a debt, decree, edict, a wanted criminal, and so-on. The term was also used for the first entry on a written list, along the lines of “written first”. The common usage in a functional sense of something written and then posted or publicly displayed predominates in the ancient literature. The verb was also used in a somewhat metaphorical sense of “being posted” or “publicly displayed”. A clearly metaphorical use that supports the established translation in Galatians 3:1 can be found not-long after Paul’s time ---
The earliest Christian examples reflecting the now-predominate sense of the verb are found in the commentaries on Galatians by Chrysostom and Augustine (both ca. 394-395 CE). Both interpret proegrahpe as Paul presenting a vivid verbal portrayal of Christ having been crucified.
Luther later follows suit describing Paul’s verbal portrayal ---
Many modern scholars could be cited in support of this predominate and firmly- established view, though with some variations on the theme. The primary issue among modern commentators involves the translation of proegraphe as either some sort of vivid verbal description of the crucifixion or, more generally, as “proclaimed publicly”. However, I think just one example will suffice here ---
Hans Dieter Betz, in 1979, emphasizes the sense of proegraphe as “to portray or proclaim publicly” and elaborates ---
Proegraphe as Previously Written
A counter-example to the metaphorical sense of the verb cited above in Epictetus is found in the eclectic collection of texts known as the Sibylline Oracles. In a Christian section dated to around the 4th century CE, the verb is used in the literal sense as something “previously written”. Acrostics are word puzzles using written text ---
Jerome, among the earliest of commentators on this verse, understood Paul’s intention for the verb to be “written before”, in a similar fashion to the use in the Sibylline Oracles as well as in the sense found in the other 3 occurrences in the NT. That is, what the Galatians saw before their eyes was something “written beforehand”. And in the case of Galatians 3:1, Jerome believed that it refered to passages in the Jewish scriptures about Jesus Christ “having been crucified” ---
Jerome’s commentary on Galatians is believed to have been based on that of Origen, though few portions of Origen’s related work have survived. This early translation and interpretation of Jerome soon lost-out --- as seen with Chrysostom, Augustine, and Luther --- but Jerome’s interpretation has found some support recently.
André Péry, in 1959, understands the crucifixion of Jesus Christ in Galatians 3:1 as a reference to textual prophesy (in, L'épitre aux Galates (Delachaux et Niestlé), 1959, p. 35, per Wendt 1/).
Paul Bretscher, in 1963, understands the verse as textual prophesy and suggests an interpretive paraphrase of Galatians 3:1 as, “Foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you? Did you not see Him with your own eyes, black on white in the Scriptures, Jesus Christ crucified?” 3/
Quite recently, in 2016, Heidi Wendt provides what I believe to be one of the best discussions of the translation issues related to Galatians 3:1, as well as other interesting ancillary issues 1/. I have drawn on her article for portions of this post. Wendt understands the verse as textual prophesy and suggests this translation, “You unknowing Galatians! Who has bewitched you, you to whom (or for whom), before your very eyes, Jesus Christ having been crucified was forewritten?” (Wendt, p. 379)
Richard B. Hays is currently Professor Emeritus of New Testament at Duke Divinity School, and is a widely-respected scholar. In this peer-reviewed book, Hays conducted his own translations from the original Greek for most passages that he used from both the LXX and Paul’s letters. Hays clearly acknowledges the possibility of a translation as “pre-written” for the verb proegraphe in Galatians 3:1 ---
Hays acknowledges that the translation of proegrahpe as “pre-written” is both possible and reasonable, and he provides a possible translation of the entire verse. Yet Hays, with little apparent conviction, ultimately falls back to the “usual translations” for no other stated reason than he accepts the translation “championed by commentators” as the “more obvious meaning”.
Hays is clearly conflicted here --- he acknowledges the evidence is ambiguous (that is, open to more than one interpretation), and Hays goes with the mainstream view as “more obvious” (not “clearly obvious”, or even just “obvious”, but rather it comes down to a judgment call between two possible options). I see Hays’ final phrase here as a wink-and-a-nod to the possibility that “scripturally prewritten” may very well have been Paul’s intention.
With the early commentary by Jerome, the opinion of at least three modern scholars, and the discussion of the widely-respected Hays, understanding proegrahpe in Galatians 3:1 as “pre-written” has significant support --- though still meager in extent.
robert j
1/ Wendt, Heidi, Galatians 3:1 as an Allusion to Textual Prophesy, JBL 135, no. 2, 2016. pp. 369-389
2/ Betz, Hans Dieter, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress), 1979
3/ Bretscher, Paul G., Light from Galatians 3:1 on Pauline Theology, Concordia Theological Monthly, vol. XXXIV, no. 2, Feb. 1963
4/ Hays, Richard B., Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, Yale University Press, 1989