1 Corinthians 13:3

1 Corinthians 13:3 kauch,swmai {C}

Did Paul write i[na kauch,swmai (“that I may glory”) or i[na kauqh,somai (“that I should be burned”)? To answer this question requires the evaluation of several very evenly balanced considerations.

In support of the reading kauch,swmai one can appeal to external evidence that is both early and weighty (î⁴⁶ a A B 6 33 69 1739* cop^{sa, bo} goth^mg Clement Origen Jerome and Greek mss^{acc. to Jerome}). Transcriptional considerations likewise favor kauch,swmai, for copyists, uncertain of Paul’s meaning in linking the idea of glorying or boasting to the preceding clause about the giving up of one’s body, may well have sought to improve the sense by substituting the similar sounding word kauqh,somai. Intrinsic considerations likewise seem to favor kauch,swmai, for this verb occurs frequently in the letters traditionally attributed to Paul (a total of 35 times).

On the other hand, in support of kauqh,somai (&swmai) there is an impressive number of witnesses, including C D F G K L Y most minuscules it vg syr^{p, h} goth^txt arm eth^pp, and numerous patristic writers, including Tertullian Aphraates Cyprian Origen Basil Chrysostom Cyril Theodoret Euthalius Maximus-Confessor John-Damascus. It has been argued that in the context kauqh,somai is as appropriate as kauch,swmai is inappropriate, for the reference to burning, whether by martyrdom (as the Three Hebrew Youths in Daniel 3:15 ff.) or by voluntary self-burning, is particularly suitable as the strongest example of sacrifice; whereas, if the motive for giving up life is pride and self-glory, there is no need to declare that such sacrifice is worthless, and therefore Paul’s following statement, avga,phn de. mh. e;cw, becomes superfluous.

A majority of the Committee preferred kauch,swmai for the following reasons. (a) After the Church entered the epoch of martyrdom, in which death by fire was not rare, it is easier to understand how the variant kauqh,somai for kauch,swmai would creep into the text, than the opposite case. Likewise the passage in Daniel was well known in the Church and might easily have induced a copyist to alter kauch,swmai into kauqh,somai. On the other hand, if the latter reading were original, there is no good reason to account for its being replaced in the oldest copies by the other reading.

(b) The expression paradw/ to. sw/ma, mou i[na kauqh,somai, though certainly tolerable in itself, is noticeably cumbersome (“I give up my body, that I may be burnt”); one would have expected, as a more natural expression, i[na kauqh|/ (“… that it may be burnt”). But in the case of kauch,swmai this difficulty disappears.

(c) The reading kauqh,swmai (= future subjunctive!), while appearing occasionally in Byzantine times, is a grammatical monstrosity that cannot be attributed to Paul (Blass-Debrunner-Funk, § 28; Moulton-Howard, p. 219); occasionally, however, the future indicative after i[na occurs ( Galatians 2:4; Philippians 2:10-11).

(d) The argument that the presence of the statement, “that I may glory,” destroys the sense of the passage loses some of its force when one observes that for Paul “glorying” is not invariably reprehensible; sometimes he regards it as justified ( 2 Corinthians 8:24; Philippians 2:16; 1 Thessalonians 2:19; 2 Thessalonians 1:4).