114 Claude Perera support (Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Jerome and Pelagius’ Com.). Jerome who critically looked at 1 Cor 13:3 in the light of Greek and Latin mss has preferred καυχ σωμαι (MPL 26, col. 425A)6. The first variant καυθ σωμαι does not have a single witness from the Alexandrian family. But it has the support of the Uncial ψ, many minuscules of the Egyptian family, although they are of late origin (after 10th century CE), as well as of the Majority Texts. It has no versional evidence, although Origen (3rd century CE), Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria and Theodoret (5th century CE) support it. The second variant καυθ σομαι is supported by only one relatively early Alexandrian uncial C (5th century CE), some mss of the entire Latin tradition (2nd century CE), and Thomas Harkel (marginal reading). It has also has much early Patristic support in Turtul- lian, Cyprian, Origen, Basil and Methodius (2nd-3rd centuries CE) and Ambrosiaster, Ephraem, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Augustine, Jerome, Maximus the Confessor and several others (4th-5th centuries CE). Although καυθ σομαι has evidence from all five categories of the Greek witnesses, it has only one from the first category namely, C which in turn is not so outstanding in comparison with P46, ), A or B of the same category as claimed by καυχ σωαμι. What do we conclude from all this? Since the last two variants viz καυθ and καυθ σεται have the least ex- ternal evidence that only late and in the fifth category only, they become the first candidates to be temporarily excluded until we look at them again under transcriptional probability [in the next paragraph]. From the point of view of external evidence in terms of age and categories, the strongest is καυχ σωμαι and thus, gets the preponderance. The second variant καυθ σομαι comes next for having two of the first category wit- nesses and for being a relatively early representation which in addition is geographically wide-spread. After that the first variant καυθ σωμαι needs to be taken seriously, although it has a relatively late representation (8th -9th centuries). So, we are left with three candidates among whom the preponderance is for the text καυχ σωαμι. Now let us examine the internal evidence beginning with transcriptional probability, where I shall concentrate on possible intentional and unintentional scribal errors in order to trace the possible original reading. Internal Evidence – Transcriptional Probability First of all, let us dismiss those variants that appear least probable. The first, third and fourth variants viz. καυθ σωμαι, καυθ and καυθ σεται 6 Jean Héring, La Première Épitre de Saint-Paul aux Corinthiens (Commentaire du Nouveau Testament 7; Neuchâtel 1949) 118.