No.
Is this not a more reasonable explanation of the verse than imagining the marks were stigmata?
No. Why would Paul refer to random lumps and bruises as "the marks of the Lord Jesus"? How would such traumas be "marks" of the Lord?
SD
I though at first you might be correct. In Galations 6:11-17 Paul is arguing against those who would be circumcised to " avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ." But if you look in the Greek text for this verse, you find the word used for mark is stigma. Here is the definition for stigma:
1) a mark pricked in or branded upon the body. To ancient oriental usage, slaves and soldiers bore the name or the stamp of their master or commander branded or pricked (cut) into their bodies to indicate what master or general they belonged to, and there were even some devotee's who stamped themselves in this way with the token of their gods
tou loipou kopouV moi mhdeiV parecetw, egw gar ta stigmata tou ihsou en tw swmati mou bastazw.
which St. Jerome translated into Latin:
de cetero nemo mihi molestus sit ego enim stigmata Iesu in corpore meo porto
Gal 4:14 And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, [even] as Christ Jesus.Or could it be he had something wrong with his eyes? Something Jesus did to him at that their first "meeting" that never quite went away? Why else would these people who did not despise his infirmity offer him their eyes (if it had been possible)?
Gal 4:15 Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if [it had been] possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me.