Andrew S. Malone, «Burn or Boast? Keeping the 1 Corinthians 13,3 Debate in Balance», Vol. 90 (2009) 400-406
The textual variant of 1 Corinthians 13,3 continues to attract debate. Recent surveys argue that there is a modicum of interest in preferring “boast” over the traditional “burn”. This short note demonstrates that support for “boast” is far more widespread than may be realised. Yet, at the same time, a number of recent
philological studies demonstrate that “burn” may not be as grammatically inadmissible as is sometimes claimed. The note suggests that the debate is far from won for either option.
Burn or Boast? 405
phenomenon as Caragounis and others: that scribes started to “hypercorrectâ€
various forms during this transition period. “So there was a countervailing
tendency to insert future indicatives into subordinate clauses even if they did
not belong — and then (quite possibly as a hypercorrection) to smooth the
insertion over by making the futures look subjunctive, if at all possible†(22).
With respect to 1 Cor 13,3, this gives further legitimacy both to kauqhvsomai
(as a future indicative in a purposive i{na clause) and to kauqhvswmai (as an
increasingly common “subjunctive†guise in such contexts).
Nicholas provides further study of the development of the future
subjunctive as a distinguishable tense. He provides a lengthy collation and
discussion of unambiguous future subjunctive passive forms in biblical and
extra-biblical use (23). While he confirms here that “we have no secure record
of the tense before the fourth century Church Fathersâ€, he briefly explores
other biblical examples where scribes have faced similar grammatical
confusions (e.g. 1 Tim 6,8; Heb 2,3; 1 Pet 3,1; Matt 26,33; Ps 82,2 LXX [Eng.
83,1]; Prov 9,11 LXX; some noted by BDF §28, but unmarked in UBSGNT4
and NA27).
This does not, of course, resolve the question of the variant. Caragounis is
adamant that kauqhvswmai (and others) evolved from an original
kauqhvsomai(24). Nicholas interprets the linguistic data in a similar direction,
but without seeking a solution. Indeed, he demonstrates that the opposite
semantic result can also be confirmed textually: Origen obviously wrote about
“boast†in his early-third-century commentary, but Byzantine scribes
conformed his language to “burn†(25).
*
**
Students of 1 Cor 13,3 must thus remain aware of two distinct and
opposing “currents†in the tide of debate. Each appears to be increasing in
intensity despite — and perhaps because of — the voracity of the other (26).
We would thus recognize that Perera’s catalogue of those who support
“boast†is much weaker than it should be. A great many scholars continue to
migrate towards this reading. Those who rely upon these findings will no
doubt continue to be swept up, adding momentum to the accelerating trend
away from the traditional “burnâ€.
Yet, at the very same instance, the ongoing research of Caragounis and
Nicholas demonstrates a scribal transition towards a distinguishable,
(22) NICHOLAS, “Passive Future Subjunctiveâ€, 98.
(23) NICHOLAS, “Passive Future Subjunctiveâ€, 109-117.
(24) E.g. CARAGOUNIS, Development of Greek, 563.
(25) NICHOLAS, “Passive Future Subjunctiveâ€, 117. The same textual choice and
explanation is offered by D.D. HANNAH, The Text of I Corinthians in the Writings of Origen
(SBLNTGF 4; Atlanta, GA 1997) 250.
(26) The debate is so even that some modern commentaries either omit discussion
altogether (which may not be inappropriate for their series) or do mention the variant but
give even-handed explanation of either option; e.g. KEENER, 1–2 Corinthians, 108-109;
B.W. POWERS, First Corinthians. An Exegetical and Explanatory Commentary (Eugene,
OR 2008) 338. We should also note THISELTON’s, First Corinthians. A Shorter Exegetical
and Pastoral Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI 2006) 220; the issue is sufficiently balanced
that, while Thiselton still clearly favours “boastâ€, he accidentally writes “burnâ€!