^{page 229 note 1} Aland, K., Black, M., Martini, C. M., Metzger, B. M. and Wikgren, A. P. (eds.), The Greek New Testament (3rd corr. ed.; United Bible Societies, 1983).Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 2} Kainh, H ΔΙАΘНΚН (2nd ed., 6th imp.; London: British and Foreign Bible Societies, 1972).Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 3} Vogels, H. J. (ed.), Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine (v.2; 4th ed.; Freiburg: Herder, 1955).Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 4} Kilpatrick, G. D. (ed.), Romans and 1 and 2 Corinthians: A Greek-English Diglot for the use of translators (London: British and Foreign Bible Societies, 1964).Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 5} Von Soden, H. F. (ed.), Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt, hergestellt auf grund ihrer Textgeschichte, II Teil: Text mit Apparat (Göttingen, 1913).Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 6} Tischendorf, C. (ed.), Н ΚАΙΝН ΔΙАΘНΚН (9th ed.; Leipzig: B Tauchnitz, 1884).Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 7} Nestle, E. and Aland, K. (eds.), Novum Testamentum Graece (25th ed.; London: United Bible Societies, 1963).Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 8} Elliott, J. K, ‘In favour of κανθήσομαı at 1 Cor 13. 3’, ZNW 62 (1971) 297–8.Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 9} de Boor, W., Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther (Wuppertaler Studienbibel; Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1968) 216–19.Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 10} Grosheide, F. W., De eerste Brief aan de kerk to Korinthe (2nd imp.; Commentaar op het Nieuwe Testament 8; Amsterdam: Bottenburg, 1957) 342–3Google Scholar; Commentary on the first Epistle to the Corinthians (The New International Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953) 302–5Google Scholar; Paulus' eerste Brief aan de Kerk to Korinthe (Korte Verklaring der Heilige Schrift; Kampen: Kok, 1954) 161–2.Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 11} Godet, F., Commentary on Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians, v.2 (Clark's Foreign Theological Library, NS, v.30; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1890) 241–3.Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 12} Morris, L., The first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (The Tyndale New Testament Commentary; London: Tyndale, 1960) 180–3.Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 1} Bachmann, P., Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther (Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, Leipzig, 1921) 388–96.Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 2} Billerbeck, P., Die Briefe des Neuen Testaments und die Offenbarung Johannis (Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrash Strack, von H. L. & Biller-beck, P., 3; 5th imp.; München: Beck, 1963) 449.Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 3} Wolff, C., Die erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther, zweiter Teil: Auslegung der Kapitel 8–16. (Theologische Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament 7/2; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1982) 119–22.Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 4} Weiss, J., Der erste Korintherbrief (9th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910) 314–15.Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 5} Robertson, A. and Plummer, A., A critical and exegetical commentary on the first Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (2nd ed.; The International Critical Commentary; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1929) 285–92.Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 6} Pop, F. J., De eerste Brief van Paulus aan de Korinthiër (de prediking van het Nieuwe Testament; Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1978) 303–4.Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 7} Groenewald, E. P., Die eerste Brief aan die Korinthiërs (Kaapstad: NG Kerkuitgewers, 1971)170–2.Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 8} Lietzmann, H., An die Korinther (5th ed.; ed. by Kümmel, W. G.. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 9; Tübingen: Mohr, 1969) 65.Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 9} Barrett, C. K, A commentary on the first Epistle to the Corinthians (London: Black, 1968) 299–303.Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 10} Kieffer, R., ‘“Afin que je sois brûlé?” ou bien “Afin que j'en tire orgueil”? (1 Cor 13. 3)’, NTS 22 (1976) 95–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 230 note 11} The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ according to the Received Greek text (London: British and Foreign Bible Societies, 1957).Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 12} Alford, H. (ed.), The Greek Testament, v. 3 (4 vols.; Cambridge: Longmans, 1897) 586.Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 13} Hodges, Z. C. and Farstad, A. L. (eds.), The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982).Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 14} Souter, A (ed.), Novum Testamentum Graece (2nd ed., 4th imp.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1956).Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 15} Scrivener, A. H. (ed.), The New Testament in the original Greek (Cambridge: University Press, 1894).Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 16} Aland, K., Black, M., Martini, C. M., Metzger, B. M. and Wikgren, A. P. (eds.), Novum Testamentum Graece (26th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1979).Google Scholar

^{page 231 note 1} Cf. the first edition of UBS in 1966, the second in 1968 and the third in 1975.

^{page 231 note 2} Westcott, B. F. and Hort, F. J. A., The New Testament in the Original Greek, pt. 1: Text (Reprint of the original; Graz: Akademie, 1974).Google Scholar

^{page 231 note 3} Héring, J., The First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (tr. by Heathcote, A. W. and Allcock, P. J.; London: Eppworth, 1962) 135; 137–8.Google Scholar

^{page 231 note 4} Cf. Metzger, B. M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (United Bible Societies, 1971) 563.Google Scholar

^{page 231 note 5} Metzger describes κανθήσωμαı as a ‘grammatical monstrosity that cannot be attributed to Paul’ – cf. Metzger, , Textual Commentary, 563–4.Google Scholar However, the fact that Hodges and Farstad print this reading in GNTMT proves that it is in fact the reading of the majority of manuscripts.

^{page 232 note 1} Elliott, , κανθήσομαı, 297–8.Google Scholar

^{page 232 note 2} Metzger, , Textual Commentary, 563–4.Google Scholar

^{page 232 note 3} Cf. e.g. Godet, , Corinthians, 241–3Google Scholar; Bachmann, , Korinther, 392Google Scholar, note 1; Robertson and Plummer, Corinthians, 291Google Scholar; Lietzmann, , Korinther, 65Google Scholar; Barrett, , Corinthians, 302–3.Google Scholar

^{page 232 note 4} Cf. e.g. Godet, , Corinthians, 241–3Google Scholar; Bachmann, , Korinther, 392Google Scholar, note 1; Robertson, and Plummer, , Corinthians, 291Google Scholar; Lietzmann, , Korinther, 65Google Scholar; Barrett, , Corinthians, 302–3Google Scholar; Elliott, , κανθήσομαı, 297–8.Google Scholar All of these critics emphasise the problems of κανχήσωμαı in the context, for example that it makes the phrase άγάπην δέ μή ἔχω superfluous; or that such an unworthy motive is absent in the context, with the result that it is not expected in vs. 3; or that the phrase παραδ τ σ⋯μά μον is incomplete with this reading. Though it is admitted by some of these critics that the exact meaning and reference of κανθήσομαı is problematic and that it therefore also is a problematic reading, no positive argument why it suits the context best is put forward.

^{page 232 note 5} Cf. e.g. Metzger, , Textual Commentary.Google Scholar This aspect of text-critical methodology gets even more attention than external evidence in this book.

^{page 233 note 1} On the poetic nature of 1 Cor 13 cf. Snyman, A. H., ‘Remarks on the stylistic parallelisms in 1 Cor 13’, A South African perspective on the New Testament. Essays by South African New Testament scholars presented to Bruce Manning Metzger during his visit to South Africa in 1985 (ed. Petzer, J. H. and Hartin, P. J.; Leiden: Brill, 1986) 202–13Google Scholar; Godet, , Corinthians, 254Google Scholar; Morris, , Corinthians, 181Google Scholar; Wolff, , Korinther, 119Google Scholar; Robertson, and Plummer, , Corinthians, 285Google Scholar; Barrett, , Corinthians, 299.Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 1} The following articles give valuable information on Russian Formalism and defamiliarization: Visser, N. W., ‘Russian Formalism’, An introduction to contemporary literary theory (ed. Ryan, R. and van Zyl, S.; Johannesburg: Jonker, 1982) 15–23Google Scholar; Mukarovsky, J., ‘Standard language and poetic language’, A Prague School reader on Esthetics, Literary Structure, and Style (ed. Garvin, P. L.; Washington: Georgetown University, 1964) 17–30Google Scholar; Havránek, B., ‘The functional differentiation of the standard language’, A Prague School reader, 3–16Google Scholar; van Baak, J. J., ‘Russisch Formalisme’, Vormen van Literatuurwetenschap: moderne richtingen en hun mogelijkheden voor tekstinterpretatie (ed. Segers, R. T.; Groningen: Wolters-Noordhof, 1985) 13–34Google Scholar; Cronjé, J. v. W., ‘Defamiliarization in the Letter to the Galatians’, A South African perspective, 214–17.Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 2} Cf. Cronjé, , Defamiliarization, 214–27.Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 3} Cf. Snyman, , Stylistic parallelisms, 205–10Google Scholar; Godet, , Corinthians, 241–3Google Scholar; Robertson, and Plummer, , Corinthians, 286.Google Scholar

^{page 235 note 1} Cf. also Snyman, , Stylistic parallelisms, 208, who identifies more or less the same parallelistic structure in these verses.Google Scholar

^{page 237 note 1} Cf. Wolff, , Korinther, 119–22Google Scholar; Godet, , Corinthians, 241–3.Google Scholar

^{page 238 note 1} Cf. 1 Cor 14. 1–5.

^{page 238 note 2} Cf. 1 Cor 12.

^{page 239 note 1} The same basic issue is being addressed in chapters 12 and 13. In ch. 12 the disunity among the Corinthians, created by their fuss about the χαρίσματα, is denounced by means of an emphasis on the unity of the Spirit (12. 1–11.) and the congregation (12. 12–31.). In ch. 13 the emphasis is on the unity created by άγάπη.

^{page 239 note 2} The problem surrounding the introduction of the phrase is also evident from the exegetes' handling of the phrase. Nobody really knows what to do with it or how to explain its function in this context. The majority of the attempted explanations of its function fail to satisfy, because the explanations usually deal with the dogmatic or theological questions surrounding the issue itself, instead of attempting to explain its function in the context. Cf. e.g. Boor, De, Korinther, 217Google Scholar; Morris, , Corinthians, 181–2Google Scholar; Bachmann, , Korinther, 388–90Google Scholar; Billerbeck, , Briefe, 449Google Scholar; Robertson, and Plummer, , Corinthians, 288.Google Scholar

^{page 239 note 3} The emphatic position contributes to the question and has also not been taken into account by exegetes. Had καί τν άγγάλων stood before the verb and closer to τν άνθρὠπων the problem would have been smaller and traditional explanations would have been more tolerable. However, its position in the sentence forces the reader to take another look at it and thus defamiliarizes the issue.

^{page 240 note 1} This is probably an allusion to Jesus' words in Mt 17. 20; 21. 21; and Mk 11. 23.

^{page 240 note 2} The notion of perfection is created by the emphatic repetition of πς.

^{page 242 note 1} Cf. Elliott, , κανθήσομαı, 298Google Scholar; Morris, , Corinthians, 183.Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 2} Lietzmann mentions that the ἴνα – and ὣστε-clauses in vss. 2 and 3 are parallel, cf. Lietzmann, , Korinther, 65.Google Scholar

^{page 243 note 1} Cf. Elliott, , κανθήσομαι, 298Google Scholar; Boor, De, Korinther, 218Google Scholar; Grosheide, , Korinthe, 1932, 432Google Scholar; Godet, , Corinthians, 241–3Google Scholar; Morris, , Corinthians, 183Google Scholar; Wolff, , Korinther, 121–2Google Scholar; Robertson, and Plummer, , Corinthians, 290–2Google Scholar; Groenewald, , Korinthiërs, 172Google Scholar; Barrett, , Corinthians, 302Google Scholar; Héring, , Corinthians, 137–8.Google Scholar

^{page 243 note 2} Cf. 2 Cor 11.16–33.

^{page 245 note 1} Cf. Snyman, , Stylistic parallelisms, 209.Google Scholar

^{page 246 note 1} Elliott, , κανθήσομαι, 298Google Scholar; Godet, , Corinthians, 241–3Google Scholar; Robertson, and Plummer, , Corinthians, 291Google Scholar; Lietzmann, , Korinther, 65Google Scholar; Metzger, , Textual Commentary, 564.Google Scholar

^{page 246 note 2} Elliott, , κανθήσομαι, 298.Google Scholar

^{page 246 note 3} Elliott, , κανθήσομαι, 298Google Scholar; Barrett, , Corinthians, 302–3.Google Scholar

^{page 246 note 4} Cf. Metzger, , Textual Commentary, 564Google Scholar; also Héring, , Corinthians, 137–8Google Scholar for a discussion of the possible reference of κανθήσομαι.

^{page 247 note 1} Robertson, and Plummer, , Corinthians, 291.Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 2} Though I do not think that the last deduction is any real evidence for κανχήσωμαı against its rivals, since one may are that the concept will also be implicitly stated when reading κανθήσομαι, I do not think that it is absolutely true that the motive is not at all in the rest of the section. It is there, albeit in a very implicit form.

^{page 247 note 3} Elliott, , κανθήσομαι, 297–8Google Scholar; Boor, De, Korinther, 218–19Google Scholar; Godet, , Corinthians, 241–3Google Scholar; Morris, , Corinthians, 183Google Scholar; Wolff, , Korinther, 121–2Google Scholar; Groenewald, , Korinthiërs, 172Google Scholar; Metzger, , Textual Commentary, 564.Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 4} Metzger, , Textual Commentary, 563.Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 5} Cf. Aland, K. and Aland, B., Der Text des Neuen Testaments (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1982) 290–1.Google Scholar

^{page 248 note 1} Elliott, , κανθήσομαι, 298.Google Scholar

^{page 248 note 2} Aland, and Aland, , Der Text, 290–1Google Scholar; Godet, , Corinthians, 241–3.Google Scholar

^{page 248 note 3} Elliott, , κανθήσομαι, 298.Google Scholar

^{page 248 note 4} Metzger, , Textual Commentary, 563Google Scholar; Kieffer, , 1 Cor 13, 95.Google Scholar

^{page 248 note 5} Elliott, , κανθήσομαι, 298.Google Scholar

^{page 249 note 1} Elliott, , κανθήσομαι, 297.Google Scholar Cf. also Kieffer, , 1 Cor 13, 95.Google Scholar

^{page 249 note 2} Elliott, , κανθήσομαι, 297–8.Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 1} Metzger, , Textual Commentary, 563.Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 2} Elliott, , κανθήσομαι, 297–8Google Scholar; Metzger, , Textual Commentary, 563–4.Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 3} The popularity of κανθήσομαι, as explained in the first part of the article, substantiates this.

^{page 250 note 4} Metzger, , Textual Commentary, 564.Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 5} Kieffer, , 1 Cor 13, 96–7.Google Scholar

^{page 252 note 1} Cf. Eco, U., A theory of Semiotics (London: Macmillan, 1977) 270–1.Google Scholar

^{page 252 note 2} The core of the eclectic method per definition is to choose applicable criteria among a given set of criteria, cf. e.g. Epp, E. J., ‘The eclectic method in New Testament Textual Criticism: solution or symptom?’, HTR 69 (1976) 212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 253 note 1} The article was completed before the appearance of G. D. Fee's commentary on 1 Corinthians. Cf. Fee, G. D., The First Epistle to the Corinthians (The New International Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988).Google Scholar