Recently I discovered a second witness other than Philostorgius below, to the fact that Flavian of Antioch was the first to invent the doxology: “...Glory be ( to ) the Father ( and to ) the Son ( and to ) the holy spirit...”

LATIN TEXT: “...Atque ut Theodorus Mopsuestenus scribit, illam psalmodiae speciem, quas antiphonas dicimus, illi ex Syrorum lingua in Graecam transtulerunt, et omnium prope soli admirandi hujus operis omnibus orbis christiani hominibus Auctores apparuerunt. Heterousiastae quidem certe, hoc est, Ariani, diversa Filium a Patre substantia esse dicentes, ita canere solebant : Gloria Patri ( per ) Filium ( in ) Spiritu sancto. Flavianus autem primus cecinisse fertur : Gloria Patri ( et ) Filo ( et ) Spiritui sancto...” - (Page 673, Book 5, Chapter 30, “THESAURI ORTHODOXAE FIDEI, Liber Quintus, Adversus Arianos, Eunomianos, Etc,” By Nicetas Choniatae, Column 1390, MPG.)

THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA{*} (circa. 350-428 C.E.): “...That you may [know], as Theodore of Mopsuestia writes: “...that the beauty of Psalm singing, the antiphons as we call [them], those out of the Syrian tounge translated into Greek, and those of all, almost alone [are] to be admired, [by] all Christian men of the world, [at least] as it appears to the authors of [this] present work. The Heterousiastae, that is, the Arians, indeed, at all events, saying that the Son is of a different substance from the Father, [and] so they were accustomed to sing: “...Glory be ( to ) the Father ( through ) the Son ( in ) the Holy Spirit.” FLAVIAN, HOWEVER, WAS THE FIRST TO HAVE SUNG, IT IS SAID: “...GLORY BE ( TO ) THE FATHER ( AND TO ) THE SON ( AND TO ) THE HOLY SPIRIT...” - (Page 673, Book 5, Chapter 30, [Column 1390, MPG] “THE TREASURES OF THE ORTHODOX FAITH,” Fifth book, “Against the Arians, the Eunomians, Etc.” By Choniatae Nicetas, Translated by Matt13weedhacker 29/03/2013.)
[FOOTNOTE *]: Also known as: “Theodore of Antioch.”

GREEK TEXT: “...Ὅτι [3.13] φησὶ τὸν Ἀντιοχείας Φλαβιανόν, πλῆθος μοναχῶν συναγείραντα, πρῶτον ἀναβοῆσαι· «δόξα πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ καὶ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι». τῶν γὰρ πρὸ αὐτοῦ τοὺς μὲν «δόξα πατρὶ δι' υἱοῦ ἐν ἁγίῳ πνεύματι» λέγειν, καὶ ταύτην μᾶλλον τὴν ἐκφώνησιν ἐπιπολάζειν· τοὺς δὲ «δόξα πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ ἐν ἁγίῳ πνεύματι.» [3.14] Ὅτι, φησίν, εἰ καὶ διεφέροντο κατὰ τὰς δόξας τοῖς τὸ ὁμοούσιον πρεσβεύουσιν οἱ ἐξ Ἀρείου, ὅμως καὶ εὐχῶν καὶ ὕμνων καὶ βουλευμάτων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων σχεδὸν ἁπάντων πλὴν τῆς μυστικῆς ἐκοινώνουν θυσίας. ἐπιγενομένου δὲ τοῦ Ἀετίου καὶ τῆς ἐν τούτοις διαστάσεως ἄρξαντος, τὴν ὁμόδοξον συναγωγήν, πάντας δεσμοὺς καὶ φιλίας καὶ συνηθείας οἷς τοῖς ἑτεροδόξοις συνήπτοντο διαρρήξαντας, εἰς ἀντίπαλον τούτοις μάλιστα παρασκευάσαι καταστῆναι μοῖραν...” - (3.13, 14; Historia ecclesiastica (fragmenta ap. Photium) ΕΚ ΤΩΝ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑΣΤΙΚΩΝ ΙΣΤΟΡΙΩΝ ΦΙΛΟΣΤΟΡΓΙΟΥ ΕΠΙΤΟΜΗ ΑΠΟ

PHILOSTORGIUS (circa. 368-439 C.E.): “...HE SAYS THAT FLAVIAN OF ANTIOCH --- ( WAS [Gk., ( πρῶτον )] THE FIRST ) --- WHO COLLECTED TOGETHER A LARGE BAND OF MONKS, AND UTTERED ALOUD THE DOXOLOGY: “...GLORY BE ( TO ) THE FATHER, ( AND TO ) THE SON, ( AND TO ) THE HOLY GHOST...”{58} For among those who had gone before him, some had been accustomed to say: “...Glory be ( to ) the Father ( through ) the Son ( in ) the Holy Ghost...” and that this latter form of doxology was [Gk., ( ἐπιπολάζειν )] the one more customarily received. He says that others again used a different form, saying: “...Glory be ( to ) the Father, ( in ) the Son, and ( in ) the Holy Ghost...” - (Book 3, Chapter 13, EPITOME OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF PHILOSTORGIUS, COMPILED BY PHOTIUS, PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE. TRANSLATED BY EDWARD WALFORD, M. A. LATE SCHOLAR OF BALLIOL COLLEGE, OXFORD. London: Henry G. Bohn, York Street, Covent Garden, 1875.)
p. 454 n. 2 Compare Theodoret, Eccl. Hist. b. ii. ch. 24.

PHILOSTORGIUS (circa. 368-439 C.E.): “...He says that FLAVIAN OF ANTIOCH, HAVING GATHERED TOGETHER A CROWD OF MONKS, --- ( WAS [Gk., ( πρῶτον )] THE FIRST ) --- TO CRY: “...GLORY BE ( TO ) THE FATHER ( AND TO ) THE SON ( AND TO ) THE HOLY SPIRIT!...” For some of those before him had said: “...Glory be ( to ) the Father ( through ) the Son ( in ) the Holy Spirit...” this [Gk., ( ἐπιπολάζειν )] being the more popular acclamation, while others had said: “...Glory be ( to ) the Father ( and to ) the Son ( in ) the Holy Spirit{50}...” - (Book 3, Chapter 13, WRITINGS OF THE GRECO-ROMAN WORLD, “Philostorgius: Church History,” Translated with an Introduction and Notes by Philip R. Amidon, S.J. 2007.)
[FOOTNOTE 50]: On different forms of the doxology heard in Antioch at the time, see Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. 2.24.3; Sozomen 3.20.8. Bishop Leontius used to suffer from convenient fits of coughing during the doxology, and the lay ascetics Flavian and Diodore, Nicene partisans who opposed the patronage of Aetius, taught the people the enormously popular antiphonal singing of Psalma, to which, one may guess, the doxology was attatched (see Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. 2.24.7-11).

ἐπιπολάζειν =
ἐπιπολάζειν verb pres inf act attic epic contr
to be uppermost, to be prevalant, prevailing, promenent, common, conspicuous, popular, most-fashionable + ( upper or most ) etc. as opposed to deep down, or buried, out of sight;

ἐπιπολάζω 1 ἐπιπολή
I. to come to the surface, float, Xen.
2. to be uppermost, to be prevalent, id=Xen.
3. to be forward; c. dat. pers. to behave insolently to, Luc.
II. to be engaged upon a thing, c. dat., id=Luc.
1 fut. σω

ἐπιπολῆς] is the genitive of a substantive ἐπιπολή ‘a surface’, only used by later and non-Attic writers; ‘veteribus illis...ἐπιπολῆς adverbii vicem fuit, Herod. I 187, Arist. Plut. 1207, Eccles. 1108, Thucyd. VI 96, et compluries Xenophon. Neque eius substantivi alius tum casus in usu fuit’. Lobeck ad Phryn. p. 126—7. It is an adverb of place or position, after the analogy of Ἀθηνῶν ‘at Athens’, λαιας χειρός (Aesch. P. V. 720) ‘on the left hand’, &c.; see Matth. Gr. Gr. § 377: (this seems to be omitted in Jelf's Grammar, though there are articles on the ‘genitive of position’; §§ 524—528, which however is illustrated only by the genitive of relative position, not that which expresses place itself. The genitive, it is to be presumed, is in both cases partitive, denoting a point in space;) it is also after the analogy of the local adverbs, οὗ, ὅπου, ὁμοῦ, οὐδαμοῦ, ποῦ and πού, ἀγχου, τηλοῦ, πανταχοῦ. ἐπιπολή itself not being in use, the substantive ‘surface, superficies’ is formed by the addition of the definite article, as Plat. Phileb. 46 D, (ὁπόταν) τὸ...ἐπιπολῆς μόνον διαχέῃ. Ar. περὶ ἐνυπνίων 2. 8, τὸ ἐπιπολῆς τοῦ ἐνοπτροῦ, ‘the surface of the mirror’. Its derivatives ἐπιπολαῖος and ἐπιπολάζειν (to be on the surface), have three different senses all arising from the properties attributable to things on the surface; either (1) ‘popular’, ‘prevalent’, ‘fashionable’, ‘current’, like things that come to the top, come uppermost, and so ‘prevail’ over the rest, as δόξαι μάλιστα ἐπιπολάζουσαι, Arist. Eth. N. I 2, 1096 a 30, ἐπιπολάζοντος τοῦ γελοίου, ib. IV. 14, 1128 a 13, Hist. Anim. IV 1. 26, τὸ μάλιστα ἐπιπόλαζον ‘the most abundant kind’, VI 37. 2, de Gen. Anim. I 20. 11, οὐ μὴν ἐπιπολάζουσί γε αἱ καθάρσεις ὥσπερ ἀνθρώποις: or (2) (if indeed there be any difference between this and the preceding) ‘conspicuous’, ‘prominent’, compared with such as are deep down, or buried, out of sight; Rhet. bis, Hist. Anim. quoted above on ἐπιπολῆς: and (3) ‘superficial’, opposed to βαθύς; either literally, de Insomn. (περὶ ἐνυπνίων) 2. 12, οὐχ ὁμοίως εἰσδύεται ἡ κηλὶς ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιπολαιότερον, or metaph., as Rhet. III 11. 10, ἀληθὲς καὶ μὴ ἐπιπόλαιον. II 23. 30, above referred to. III 10. 4, τὰ ἐπιπόλαια τῶν ἐνθυμημάτων, followed by the explanation, ἐπιπόλαια γὰρ λέγομεν τὰ παντὶ δῆλα, καὶ α<*> μηδὲν δεῖ ζητῆσαι, is doubtful; for an enthymeme may be too easy to follow and therefore unacceptable, either because it is intellectually ‘superficial’ (this I think is the more probable meaning, because more applicable to an intellectual process) or because it is ‘prominent and conspicuous’, saute aux yeux, and therefore is δῆλον πᾶσιν, Top. A 1, 100 b 27. Similarly in Pol. III 3, 1276 a 19, ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐπιπολαιοτάτη τῆς ἀπορίας ζήτησις (the most obvious and apparent, the clearest and plainest) περὶ τὸν τόπον καὶ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἐστίν, and again, ib. c. 12, 1282 b 30, ἢ τοῦτο ἐπιπόλαιον τὸ ψεῦδος; (evident on the surface). In these two last instances the literal sense of the word is uppermost.
Commentary on the Rhetoric of Aristotle. Edward Meredith Cope. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. 1877.


  1. I was literally dying for your next box man hahaha. You do some of the most amazing research, thank you!!

  2. Thank you for your complements.

    But I'm sorry to disapoint you a little bit, because, I'm extremely buisy these days doing part of a diploma. So, as much as I hate to say it, my blog will sadly be neglected over the next few months.

    I will try my best to squeeze in time to post what I can, when I can.

    Feel free to ask any questions regards my posts. And don't hold your breath for to long if your waiting for posts.

    Best regards.


  3. If this Flavian was the first to make up this "Trinitarian Doxology" of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (the Trinitarian formula), how then do we explain these triadic texts which came long before Flavian, and from greater authorities then he?

    Matthew 28:19
    Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost....

    1 Corinthians 8:6
    But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

    Galatians 4:4-6
    [4] But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, [5] To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. [6] And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

    Titus 3:4-6
    [4] But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, [5] Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; [6] Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour....

  4. Hi, greetings to all, first, very good research on your blog, I am spanish speaking, so sorry for my poor english.
    Why should we have to call 'trinitarian' doxology to the versicles listed? They do not explain any 'trinitarian' relation between the individuous (a better name could be 'three' doxology), we don't read nothing of the trinitarian words like person, escense, substance, etc in this versicles. Even 1 Corinthians 8:6 say's absolutely nothing about Holy Spirit, this can't even been called 'tree' doxology, because only refers 'two' individuals.

    Matthew only talk about three once time in a versicle who could not be originally part of the Gospel.
    Mark never writes about three.
    Luke never writes about three.
    John never writes about three.
    James never writes about three.
    Peter never writes about three.
    Only Paul talk about three, but don't explain any 'trinitarian relation' between them.

    I think that the Bible lacks of 'trinitarian' doxology because most of the time his writers not even spoken of three.


Post a Comment