Burn or Boast? 401 The external evidence primarily attests the first two of these. The first is found in MSS of the Alexandrian tradition, while the second largely enjoys Western and Byzantine evidence including “a majority of patristic writers” (4). The third is included here in anticipation of later discussion and is, itself, considered original by a number of interpreters. Regardless of preference, scholars recognize that such attestation gives the first option, “boast”, an apparent advantage. This has undoubtedly contributed to its rise in favour over the last two or three decades. Near the start of this new trend, in what has proved to be one of the seminal articles, Jacobus Petzer could complain that “kauchvswmai seems to be the least popular” of the major contenders(5). Even quite recently Perera reluctantly concludes that “It is only a few scholars who favour the reading kauchvswmai” (6). However, we need to notice that the number of translations and commentators abandoning “burn” for “boast” is much greater than Perera allows. The data for this increasing flood can be catalogued in several ways. First, the momentum in favour of “boast” continues to increase. Perhaps because it remains the preferred reading of NA26.27 and UBSGNT3.4, English translations continue to adopt it. Perera found the RSV (1971) and NRSV (1989) to be “Unique exceptions among modern versions” (7). Yet three more should be named here. The NLT (1996, 2004) is a scholarly paraphrase designed to update and replace the popular Living Bible. The NET Bible (2005) is popular with internet publishers, and increasingly among print authors. And the TNIV (2001, 2005) is intended to supersede the immensely influential NIV. The first and last of these are indeed being widely adopted, and are poised to move the debate from the academy into the church, and may continue to influence the trend in vernacular translations around the globe (8). Second, this trend is fuelled as much by commentaries as by translations. To Perera’s survey we must add several more: some which he had not listed, and others published more recently (9). Support is also found, in passing, in an array of other studies which touch on this verse(10). (4) D.E. GARLAND, 1 Corinthians (BECNT 7; Grand Rapids, MI 2003) 627. (5) J.H. PETZER, “Contextual Evidence in Favor of KAÁCHSWMAI in 1 Corinthians 13.3”, NTS 35 (1989) 230. (6) PERERA, “Burn or Boast?”, 119. (7) PERERA, “Burn or Boast?”, 112. (8) I emulate Perera’s heavy emphasis on English versions. But a shift towards “boast” can also be found in foreign translations, such as the International Bible Society’s BDS (1999): “au point de pouvoir m’en vanter”. (9) E.g. W.F. ORR – J.A. WALTHER, I Corinthians (AB 32; Garden City, NY 1976) 291; B. WITHERINGTON III, Conflict & Community in Corinth (Grand Rapids, MI 1995) 268; R.B. HAYS, First Corinthians (IBC; Louisville, KY 1997) 225; R.A. HORSLEY, 1 Corinthians (ANTC; Nashville, TN 1998) 176; A.C. THISELTON, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, MI 2000) 1042-1044; G.J. LOCKWOOD, 1 Corinthians (Concordia Commentary; St Louis, MI 2000) 457-458; N.T. WRIGHT, Paul for Everyone. 1 Corinthians (London 2003) 173-174; J.A. FITZMYER, First Corinthians (AYB 32; New Haven, CT 2008) 494; B.S. ROSNER – R.E. CIAMPA, 1 Corinthians (PNTC; Grand Rapids, MI forthcoming). Perera does cite some of these on other matters (notably the scholarly volumes of Orr – Walther, and Thiselton) but fails to adduce their support for “boast”. (10) E.g. M.M. MITCHELL, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation. An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (Louisville, KY 1992) 91; J.F.M. SMIT, “Two Puzzles: 1 Corinthians 12.31 and 13.1: A Rhetorical Solution”, NTS 39 (1993) 255-258; M.D. GOULDER, Paul and the Competing Mission in Corinth (Peabody,