NOTAS 111 BURN OR BOAST? A TEXT CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF 1 COR 13:3 CLAUDE PERERA The dearth of external evidence in addition to the support of arguments from a transcriptional probability perspective eliminates the variants καυθ and καυθ σεται in 1 Cor 13:3. Besides having a syntactic problem, the vari- ant καυθ σωμαι is a theologically motivated scribal intervention. Historical facts, hinder the candidature of καυθ σομαι and a syntagmatic approach does not favour either καυθ σομαι or καυχ σωμαι. In Paul boasting is am- bivalent. “To boast in the Lord” is something positive. Furthermore, Petzer justifies καυχ σωμαι from a structural point of view. On textual, gram- matical and historical grounds καυχ σωμαι cannot be a later addition. Introduction There has been a basic Textual Critical disagreement in the history of exegesis in regard to the two major readings καυθ σομαι and καυχ σωμαι in the text of 1 Cor 13:3. The majority of scholars in modern times have opted for the former. My intention here is to revisit all the five possible candidates, and to see whether this majority position is indeed justifiable. In arriving at a solution, I wish to follow a strict Textual Critical meth- odology. I would first survey the opinions of modern scholarship. Then, I shall examine respectively the external evidence and internal evidence, beginning with the transcriptional probability followed by the intrinsic probability. In that process, I wish to keep eliminating the candidates which fall short of solid Text Critical criteria until I make the final choice. Now let us elaborate on the problematic. The Problematic The text of 1 Cor 13:3 according to NA26, 27 and GNT (UBS - 1966) reads as, κ ν ψωμ ζω π ντα τ π ρχοντ μου κα ν παραδ το σ μά μου να καυχ σωμαι, γ πην δ μ χω, ο δ ν φελο μαι1. (“If 1 For the time being going along with NA26, 27 and GNT (UBS - 1966), let us select καυχ σωμαι as the text and leave the other four candidates as variants and then see which among these five has the most evidence. Filología Neotestamentaria - Vol. XVIII - 2005, pp. 113-130 Facultad de Filosofía y Letras - Universidad de Córdoba (España)