Burn or Boast? Keeping the 1 Corinthians 13,3 Debate in Balance The textual variant of 1 Corinthians 13,3 has become infamous and continues to attract debate. Did Paul speak of giving over his body in order that he might “boast” or that he might “be burned”? This short note need not recapitulate the ever-increasing volume of literature on the subject. Rather, it is presented as a supplement to the recent and detailed survey by Claude Perera, whose study already catalogues the vast majority of relevant contributions (1). We are thus able to progress the discussion several years by confirming, correcting and complementing Perera’s work. What we find is twofold. Perera has underestimated how much the dyke of tradition has crumbled over recent decades; a flood of interpreters is abandoning “burn” for “boast”. Yet consensus is not complete. Indeed the tide may be starting to turn back, with a number of recent studies defending the plausibility of “burn”. One important factor in the debate is the grammatical viability of one of the variants; interpreters are often swayed by the perceived admissibility or illegitimacy of a future subjunctive. This short note offers a review of some recent representative literature, and draws attention to ongoing discoveries concerning the viability of a future subjunctive. 1. The Increasing Flood Although at least eight variants are attested in the MSS (2), scholars regularly reduce the primary choice to two or three. It is recognized that the likely pathway between these variants involved the alteration of only one letter at a time: a. kauchvswmai, aorist subjunctive middle of kaucavomai, “boast” b. kauqhswmai, future subjunctive passive of kaivw, “burn” v c. kauqhvsomai, future indicative passive of kaivw, “burn” (3). Of course, the order in which these changes took place is the precise question at stake: was “burn” altered to “boast”, or “boast” transmuted into “burn”? And if some form of kaivw was original, which? (1) C. PERERA, “Burn or Boast? A Text Critical Analysis of 1 Cor 13:3”, Filología Neotestamentaria 18 (2005) 111-128, esp. 113, n. 5. (2) See especially C.C. CARAGOUNIS, The Development of Greek and the New Testament (WUNT 167; Tübingen 2004) 549-550. Some further spelling variations are catalogued by R.J. SWANSON (ed.), New Testament Greek Manuscripts. 1 Corinthians (Wheaton, IL 2003) 203. (3) The other variants, bar one (itself occurring but once), are further forms of the verb kaivw, typically indicative passive ones. Although these are not viable contenders for the original reading, Caragounis demonstrates whence they might be derived (and how they support his thesis).