406 Andrew S. Malone legitimate future subjunctive, particularly in main and purpose clauses. Indeed, that tense seems to have developed exclusively within religious writings, hinting that such biblical constructions were key catalysts in — if not actual examples of — its evolution. This may then grant support to those who favour the traditional “burn” variant(s). Recognizing these two competing tides will be an important factor as scholars continue to determine which may prove dominant in the coming decades. At the very least it should bring a sense of balance to those, in either camp, who wish to declare any degree of consensus in the debate. Ridley Melbourne Andrew S. MALONE Mission & Ministry College 170 The Avenue, Parkville 3052, Australia SUMMARY The textual variant of 1 Corinthians 13,3 continues to attract debate. Recent surveys argue that there is a modicum of interest in preferring “boast” over the traditional “burn”. This short note demonstrates that support for “boast” is far more widespread than may be realised. Yet, at the same time, a number of recent philological studies demonstrate that “burn” may not be as grammatically inadmissible as is sometimes claimed. The note suggests that the debate is far from won for either option.