Claude Perera, «Burn or boast? A Text Critical Analysis of 1 Cor 13:3.», Vol. 18 (2005) 111-128
The dearth of external evidence in addition to the support of arguments
from a transcriptional probability perspective eliminates the variants kauqh|=
and kauqh/setai in 1 Cor 13:3. Besides having a syntactic problem, the variant
kauqh/swmai is a theologically motivated scribal intervention. Historical
facts, hinder the candidature of kauqh/somai and a syntagmatic approach
does not favour either kauqh/somai or kauxh/swmai. In Paul boasting is ambivalent.
"To boast in the Lord" is something positive. Furthermore, Petzer
justifies kauxh/swmai from a structural point of view. On textual, grammatical
and historical grounds kauxh/swmai cannot be a later addition.
124 Claude Perera
names five predominant gifts of the charismatic community at Corinth
namely, speaking in tongues, prophecy, understanding of all mysteries,
knowledge and faith. He concludes this list in the hyperbolic expression,
“… but have no love, I gain nothing.†He relativizes their charisms and
insists that they got to be exercised in a context of love. The moment
the charisms become detrimental to love, they lose their worth. Referring
to this alienation of charisms from love, Carson rightly says, “…in this
divine mathematics, five minus one equals zero37â€.
Now let us summarize what we have seen in this study. The examina-
tion of external evidence propelled us to sound the death knell to the
variants καυθ / and καυθ σεται that had the least support and we were
left with καυχ σωμαι, καυθ σομαι, and καυθ σωμαι. As regards the
transcriptional probability, first of all we eliminated the third an fourth
variants we saw in this section that καυθ and καυθ σεται as resulting
from scribal errors and thus, we excluded them. Secondly, the first vari-
ant καυθ σωμαι seemed to have resulted from theologically motivated
scribal interventions. Had it been the original, there would have been no
need for it to be replaced by the older reading καυθ σομαι. As regards the
intrinsic probability, we saw first that the variant καυθ σωμαι involved
a syntactic problem further disqualifying it to be a candidate. Secondly,
although καυθ σομαι was proposed to have favoured the martyrdom
hypothesis, historical facts prevent us from arriving at such a conclusion.
The attempt to interpret καυθ σομαι as a reference to the branding of
slaves by fire was also unsuccessful. On the other hand, we saw also that a
syntagmatic approach to the problem did not help us to decide in favour
of either alternative. However, from the point of Pauline vocabulary,
boasting was seen to be ambivalent. The only form of boasting Paul justi-
fied was that in the Lord. Here in 1 Cor 13:3 it was such an instance of
boasting in the Lord. Petzer’s argument justifying καυχ σωμαι further
confirmed our stance on the same. In the light of all above observations,
on textual, grammatical and historical grounds it is difficult to explain
37
D.A. Carson, Showing the Spirit (Carlisle 1995) 60 as quoted by Gatiss, “Love is the
Greatest Thing …â€