Re: Galatians 1:5

From: Ben Crick (
Date: Mon Jun 30 1997 - 18:08:54 EDT

On Sun 29 Jun 97 (22:20:02), wrote:
> James Krieg, in a little commentary, has a paragraph on the "hwi hH
> doxa" of Galatians 1:5.

> He indicates that most translators supply the verb "be," thus making it
> subjunctive, meaning something like "God should BE glorified."

> However, pointing to similar structures in 1 PET 4:1 and ROM 1:25, he
> argues that it should really be indicative, "to whom IS glory." This
> makes its factual rather than potential, according to Krieg.


 hWi hH DOXA, to whom glory! The verb (to be) is assumed; whether subjunctive,
 or jussive, or indicative, (Hi, ESTW, ESTIN) one cannot argue from silence.

 FWIW, could one re-breathe and re-accent hH (taken as the definite article)
 as Hi, with smooth breathing and circumflex, the 3rd pers sing subjunctive
 of the verb EIMI (EINAI), to be? This would yield the jussive force, "to
 whom *be* glory". All the old MSS are in BLOCK CAPITALS without any accents
 or punctuation, so anything goes that makes sense! IF it makes sense...

 JB Lightfoot, /Epistle to the Galatians/, 1865 (10th ed 1890) writes:
 "hH DOXA] 'the /glory/, which is pre-eminently such, the glory which belongs
 to him': comp Joh. xvii.5. The article is almost universally found with
 DOXA in these doxologies. Contrast with this the absence of the article in
 Rom 11.10, 1 Cor xi.15. It is probable therefore that we should supply
 ESTIN in such cases rather than ESTW. It is an affirmation rather than a
 wish. Glory is the essential attribute of God. See 1 Peter iv.11 hWi ESTIN
 hH DOXA KAI TO KRATOS, and the doxology added to the Lord's Prayer,
 Matt vi.13." (ad loc).

 DOXA, from DOKEIN, to think, normally means "opinion", as in "orthodox", of a
 right opinion. But especially in John's Gospel, it seems to mean "Glory", so
 hence the "Shekhinah glory" of the presence of the LORD (Exodus 25:8; 29:45,
 etc). DOXA translates /Kebhodh-YHWH/, the "weightiness" or "gravity" of YHWH;
 hence his Glory, DOXA (Exodus 16:7 LXX). So DOXA in the NT equates with the
 Shekhinah Glory of the Old Testament.

 Does it make much difference? Hardly. If it mattered, the missing verb
 would have been supplied, IMHO.

 To Him be the glory,

 Revd Ben Crick, BA Bristol, 1963 (hons in Theology)
 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK)

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:20 EDT