Diglotting

Despite the abundance of literature published on it, there is no scholarly consensus yet reached concerning the textual variant in 1 Corinthians 13:3. While there are actually several readings present in the Greek manuscript tradition of this verse, they can all be reduced down to the verbs καυχαομαι, “I boast”, and καιω, “I burn.” The specific readings of καυχησωμαι, “I may boast”, and καυθησομαι, “I may be burned”, will be the focus of this study.[1]

The reading of καυθησομαι has typically been regarded as the original text. This can be seen in that all the earlier critical Greek editions of the New Testament prefer it,[2] it is found in most English translations,[3] and that it is chosen by the majority of commentators and interpreters of this verse.[4] Alternatively, there has been an increasingly prevalent trend towards selecting καυχησωμαι as the original reading, a decision which is seen in recent critical editions,[5] commentaries,[6] and English translations.[7]

In an attempt to arbitrate this textual problem, this essay will utilize a reasoned eclectic methodology by first examining the external evidence of manuscripts, versions, and patristic attestation, followed by the internal evidence of transcriptional and intrinsic probabilities.

The External Evidence

There are three readings that have noteworthy support in the Greek manuscript tradition: καυχησωμαι (aorist middle subjunctive of καυχαομαι), καυθησομαι (future indicative passive of καιω), and καυθησωμαι (future subjunctive passive of καιω).[8] While this study only focuses upon the viability of the first two readings, the external support for καυθησωμαι will also be called upon due to the fact that it supports καυθησομαι.[9] The focus of this study precludes an in-depth look at how the future subjunctive reading arose but suffice to say it is likely due to the fact that the indicative is seldom found in a ινα clause.[10]

The following brief apparatus lists the support for each reading:[11]

Καυχησωμαι

• Manuscripts: P46, 01, 02, 03, 048,[12] 0150, 33, 1739*
• Versions: Coptic^{(Sa, Bo)}
• Patristics: Origen, Didymus, Jerome

Καυθησομαι

• Manuscripts: 04, 06, 010, 012, 020, 81, 104, 263, 1175, 1881*
• Versions: Old Latin, Italian, Vulgate, Syriac, Ethopic, Slavonic
• Patristics: Tertullian, Ambrosiaster, Jerome

Καυθησωμαι

• Manuscripts: 044, 6, 256, 365, 424, 1739^c, Byzantine
• Versions: None
• Patristics: Tertullian, Origen, Basil, Gregory-Nyssa, Chrysostom, Cyril, Cyprian, Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, Augustine

The reading καυχησωμαι is revealed to be a primarily Alexandrian reading due to being found only in a wide range of Alexandrian witnesses: papyrus (P46), uncials (01, 02, 03, 048, 0150), minuscules (33, 1739), and versions (both the Sahidic and Boharic forms of the Coptic). The earliest patristic attestation to this reading is also from Alexandrian witnesses (Origen and Didymus). While this reading is isolated to a fairly limited geographical area, with little attestation elsewhere, it must be noted that some of the uncials and minuscules which attest to it are generally considered to be some of the most significant extant manuscripts for arriving at the original text.[13]

Kαυθησομαι is supported by the uncial 048, many late minuscules of Egyptian provenance, the second-century translations of the Syriac,[14] Coptic, and Itala,[15] as well as the second-century writings of Tertullian, Clement,[16] and Origen (who was aware of both main readings).  This is noteworthy since it demonstrates the reading existed in the Greek manuscript tradition by at least the mid-second century. So despite the fact that the reading is not found in any early papyri, but is instead found only in later uncials and minuscules, the support supplied by the patristic and versional evidence effectively puts it on par with the external support for καυχησωμαι.

Perera (2005, 114) summarizes the external evidence as favoring καυχησωμαι in terms of both age and categories of manuscripts, yet this is not an accurate assessment of the data considering that both readings can actually be dated back to the second-century. To sum up, both variants have early external evidence but the limited geographical distribution of καυχησωμαι as an Alexandrian reading gives the upper hand to καυθησομαι.

Internal Evidence

The criterion of transcriptional probabilities deals with such matters as scribal habits and paleographical features of a text. It attempts to answer the question as to which textual variant a scribe would have more likely been responsible for introducing into the manuscript tradition. Due to the similarity of the two readings of καυχησωμαι  and καυθησομαι both phonetically and graphically, the variant could have easily arisen from a hearing error in dictation or a visual blemish in an exemplar.

Perera (2005, 120) and Comfort (2008, 515) have suggested that since καυθησομαι is evocative of martyrdom, it is possible a scribal change occurred in an attempt to assimilate the verse to Dan. 3 and its depiction of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego being thrown into the fiery furnace. However, it could easily be argued that instead of a scribe changing the text to provide an allusion to Daniel, it was actually Paul himself who intended that allusion in the first place. It is also regularly pointed out that during the time in which this epistle was written, martyrdom by burning had not yet become a widespread phenomenon, for death would have most likely be meted out by other means. Death by burning did become a popular form of execution later on, thus providing the impetus leading to the introduction of καυθησομαι into the manuscript tradition.

Turning now to intrinsic probabilities we approach the variants by examining the vocabulary of the author throughout the text of 1 Corinthians, as well as the larger corpus of Pauline writings. The root verb καυχαομαι is found thirty-five times in the Pauline corpus and can rightly be described as a preferred Pauline term, whereas the root verb καιω is found nowhere else in Paul’s writings.[17] Though this alone cannot be used to decisively adjudicate this variant as there is nothing prohibiting a unique occurrence of a word here by Paul. In fact, one can legitimately argue that a unique occurrence of a word here by Paul could have led a scribe to change it to a more common word that Paul used.[18]

From a contextual perspective, καυχησωμαι is undoubtedly the harder reading and by applying the text-critical principle of lectio difficilior potior, “the more difficult reading is stronger”, it would support the notion that the text was changed to καυθησομαι by a confused scribe. However, various scholars have proposed arguments endorsing the contextual validity of καυχησωμαι. For example, Petzer (1989, 235) proposes that in 1 Cor. 13:1-3 Paul is using parallel argumentation that grows progressively more hyperbolic and climaxes in the use of boasting in the final verse. To elaborate, in each verse Paul speaks of a possible action obtainable by the Corinthians (13:1 – speaking in the tongues of men; 13:2 – prophesying and having faith), which is then followed by an absurd hyperbolic exaggeration of the action (13:1 – speaking in the tongues of angels; 13:2 – knowing and comprehending all mysteries and having faith to move mountains), and finally the usefulness of such an action without love (αγαπην δε μη εχω) is elucidated. In 1 Cor. 13:3, the possible action attainable by the audience is the giving away of one’s possessions, but Petzer does not believe that the reading of καυθησομαι logically follows through with this pattern, as the burning of one’s body is not an unattainable hyperbolic exaggeration of giving away one’s possessions.[19] While this is a salient observation, the alternative reading of καυχησωμαι does not seem to keep this pattern intact either, as boasting about giving up one’s body is hardly an absurd hyperbolic exaggeration.

A structural look at 1 Cor. 13:1-3 reveals that each verse uses the same congruency of imagery in its makeup. Each verse is comprised of two conditional protases, the negative clause αγαπην δε μη εχω, and then an apodosis. The protases in verse 1 reference the “tongues of men and of angels”. These actions, without love, are then described in the apodosis as noisy gongs and clanging cymbals, where the imagery of noise is continuous between the protases and the apodosis. In verse 2, the protases speak of “prophesying” and having “all knowledge and all faith.” These virtues, without love, are described by Paul in the apodosis as “nothing”, which again is continuous with the protases in that “nothing” is the antithesis of “all”. Finally, the first protasis of verse 3 speaks of giving away “all I have” and the second protasis speaks of handing over “my body.” Regardless as to whether the second protasis contains the reading of καυθησομαι or καυχησωμαι, they are both in continuity with the apodosis (“I gain nothing”) by being antithetical to it (i.e. the contrast between “all” and “nothing” again). Yet, καυχησωμαι (“if I deliver up my body that I may boast”) spoils this pattern of continuity by adding a pejorative element which is not found in the previous verses.

Conversely, Petzer (1989, 235) and Fee (1987, 633-35) anticipate this argument and assert that the boasting in this verse carries positive connotations. In particular, Fee says that Paul is speaking of his own bodily sufferings that lead to the positive boasting of the salvation of the Corinthians. Though contra to Fee and Petzer, one can argue that the reading of καυχησωμαι should rightly be seen in a pejorative manner due to how boasting is portrayed this way earlier in the epistle (1 Cor. 1:29, 31; 3:21; and 4:7). Thus if one grants the originality of καυθησομαι, then the giving up of one’s body to be burned conserves the positive aspect of the protases and so preserves the full stylistic pattern of this pericope.

Conclusion

There is no obvious answer to this textual dilemma in 1 Cor. 13:3 as both the external and internal evidence can be marshaled to support either reading. With that said, it is the conclusion of this short study that the reading of καυθησομαι is to be slightly favored due to its widespread early attestation, together with the internal coherence it can bring to the larger pericope of 1 Cor. 13:1-3. The variant of καυχησωμαι no doubt entered the Alexandrian textual tradition quite early, possibly either as the result of an inadvertent scribal mishap, or as a deliberate attempt to correct what was thought to be an erroneous reading of an indicative καυθησομαι in a ινα clause.