402 Andrew S. Malone Third, there is even wider support for “boast” amongst the translations and commentaries that Perera himself identifies. He is wrong in claiming a mere “handful” of supporters, because he has misclassified several works. In particular, the landmark commentary by Gordon Fee actually promotes Perera’s preferred variant (11). Similarly, Perera has cited only the earlier edition of the NAB (1970); its revised NT (1986) — apparently influenced by the updating of UBSGNT3 (1975), NA26 (1979) and the Nova Vulgata (1979) — now also prefers “boast”. Thus we need to move beyond the impression that there is only pitiful support for this lectio difficilior. The tide had already turned noticeably in favour of “boast” before the beginning of this century (pace Perera), and continues to be the preferred choice of commentators and translators alike. The early lament of Petzer must now be replaced by the more recent one of David Garland, that “boast” is now the preference of “many recent commenta- tors” (12). However, there are those who continue to defend the more traditional “burn” (13). Proponents of either verb concede that the final decision turns on matters of intrinsic probability based on internal issues as much as on the external manuscript evidence (14). 2. The Pivotal Question of the Future Subjunctive We are not rehearsing here every internal argument. However, we must recognize that most accept or reject the second variant based on their understanding of its grammatical viability. Influential publications insist that kauqhvswmai should be rejected on such grounds. Fee’s NICNT volume labels it “a grammatical monstrosity MA 2001) 253; J. CORLEY, “The Pauline Authorship of 1 Corinthians 13”, CBQ 66 (2004) 259; J.E. AGUILAR CHUI, 1 Cor 12–14. Literary Structure and Theology (AnBib 166; Rome 2007) 291-292. (11) So G.D. FEE, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI 1987) 629, n. 18, 633-635; C.L. BLOMBERG, 1 Corinthians (NIVAC; Grand Rapids, MI 1995) 259; cf. BLOMBERG, From Pentecost to Patmos (Nottingham 2006) 191, n. 96. Perera has misclassified these as supporters of “burn” because the commentaries initially print the text of the NIV — though the commentators later move to distance themselves from the NIV’s choice of variant. Similarly, Perera judges A.F. JOHNSON, 1 Corinthians (IVPNTC 7; Downers Grove, IL 2004) in favour of “burn”, even though Johnson is ultimately ambivalent about the NIV’s choice (pp. 245-246). The error also works the other way; Perera counts the support of C.S. KEENER, 1–2 Corinthians (NCBC; Cambridge 2005) 108- 109, but Keener distances himself from the NRSV text printed in his commentary series. (12) GARLAND, 1 Corinthians, 627. (13) E.g. C. FOCANT, “1 Corinthiens 13. Analyse rhétorique et analyse de structures”, The Corinthian Correspondence (ed. R. BIERINGER) (BETL 125; Leuven 1996) 222, n. 274; W. SCHRAGE, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (1Kor 11,17–14,40) (EKKNT 7/3; Zürich 1999) 290-291; A. LINDEMANN, Der Erste Korintherbrief (HNT 9/1; Tübingen 2000) 285- 286; GARLAND, 1 Corinthians, 627-628; E. WAALER, The Shema and The First Commandment in First Corinthians (WUNT 2/253; Tübingen 2008) 311. Some form of the “burn” reading is also retained in the recent ESV (2001) and HCSB (2000, 2003) translations, as well as other vernacular versions. (14) E.g. FEE, First Corinthians, 629, n. 18; PETZER, “In Favor of KAÁCHSWMAI”, 231; FOCANT, “1 Corinthiens 13”, 222, n. 274; GARLAND, 1 Corinthians, 627; CARAGOUNIS, Development of Greek, 563.