122 Claude Perera pejorative, specially if it is viewed from the perspective of divine grace that culminated in the death of Christ for sinners. The shameful death on the cross was transformed by grace into the supreme salvific act tran- scending all human confidence and self-sufficiency (1 Cor 1:29-31; 9:15). The only form of boasting which Paul justifies is that of his boasting in the Lord (Rom 3:27; 2 Cor 8:24; 11:16-30; Phil 2:16; 1 Thes 2:19; 2 Thes 1:4). Such boasting hinges on the “weakness” and “folly” of God (Rom 5:3; 15:17; 2 Cor 11:16-17; 12:9; Gal 6:14). Paul boasts of his own labour and sufferings for Christ, not as a human victory, but in the same spirit as that of the self-emptying of Christ through which the Father exalted him (Rom 5:10-11; 2 Cor 10:13f; 12:5, 6, 9; Phil 2:7-9). Although boasting could be dangerous and foolish (Rom 3:28), boasting in the Lord has something positive about it. It helps Christians to identify who a true apostle is (2 Cor 10-13)34. 04. There is one more argument which favours καυχ σωμαι and that has been proposed by Petzer35. Although we may not agree with all that he says, it does shed light on our understanding of the text (cf. Appendix 3). He looks at the text of 1 Cor 13:1-3 from the perspective of three semiotic principles viz. the parallelistic and climactic structures (in which the meanings are parallel as well as progressive), and the tech- nique of defamiliarization36. The three verses consist of three sections with a basically identical structure namely, two protases of a conditional sentence of varying length (Aa and Ab) contrasted by a negative clause with δε (B) and finally an apodosis (C). The A parts in the protases deal with χαρ σματα, the B parts contrast them with γ πη while the C parts as the apodoses fulfill the condition. They are arranged in a climactic se- quence from the less important to the more important e.g. the χαρ σματα such as the tongues of men are not so difficult to obtain and to practise, whereas the tongues of angels are more difficult; but in this regard γ πη is most difficult. Comparing ‘a’ with ‘b’ it is said that ‘a’ parts announce the issue, while the ‘b’ parts elaborate the argument by exaggerating the issue, making things unfamiliar and unintelligible (technique of defamil- 34 Ibid., 346. 35 J.H. Petzer, “Contextual Evidence in favour of ΚΑΥΧΗΣΩΜΑΙ in 1 Corinthians 13.3”, 235; A similar attempt has been made by Smit. Cf. J.F.M. Smit, “Two puzzles: 1 Corinthians 12:31 and 13:3: A Rhetorical Solution”, NTS 39 (1993) 246-64. 36 This was first developed by Russian Formalists to demarcate between literature and non-literature. The function of literature according to them was to present familiar things in an unfamiliar or defamiliarized language in order to force the reader to re-think or re-read the text. Cf. Petzer, “Contextual Evidence”, 233-34; For some basic bibliography on the same cf. Ibid., n. 1, 234.