2 Corinthians 12:15

15. εἰ (אABFG 17, Copt.) rather than εἰ καί (א3D2D3KLP, f Vulg. Syrr. Arm. Aeth.): D, d g omit both εἰ and καί. Perhaps ἀγαπῶ (אA 17, Copt.) rather than ἀγαπῶν (א3BDFGKLP, Latt.). See notes ad loc. Both here and 1 Corinthians 11:17 ἧσσον (אABD) rather than ἧττον (D3KL) or ἔλασσον (FG). But in Romans 11:12 and 1 Corinthians 6:7 the form ἥττημα is unquestioned.

15. ἐγὼ δὲ ἥδιστα δαπανήσω καὶ ἐκδαπανηθήσομαι. But I will most gladly (2 Corinthians 12:9) spend and be spent utterly (be wholly spent) for your souls. Strong emphasis on ἐγώ: all parents should provide for their children; but he will do more. He will spend his possessions and spend himself also to the uttermost, to save their souls. ‘For you’ (A.V.) is much too vague for ὑπὲρ τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν. “The writer chooses this fuller phrase in place of the simple ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν to suggest the manifold sum of vital powers which the Christian has to make his own: Luke 21:19” (Westcott on Hebrews 13:17, which illustrates this passage). S. Paul here uses ψυχὴ for the whole of man’s inner nature or true life, which is its common meaning in Greek philosophy, in Gospels and Acts, and in 1 Peter. He is not using it here for a special faculty of man’s immaterial nature distinct from πνεῦμα or νοῦς (1 Corinthians 15:45-46; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; comp. 1 Corinthians 14:14-15). See Hort, and Bigg, on 1 Peter 1:9; also Hatch, Biblical Greek, pp. 101, 113, 130; and, for S. Paul’s self-sacrifice, Philippians 2:17; Romans 9:3. Comp. animaeque magnae prodigum Paulum (Hor. Od. I. xii. 36). The rare comp. ἐκδαπανᾷν, ‘to spend to the last farthing,’ occurs here only in Biblical Greek. It occurs Joseph. Ant. XV. 2 Corinthians 12:1, and in Polybius. ‘I will spend my substance and the last fragment of myself for your salvation.’

εἰ περισσοτέρως ὑμᾶς�, ἦσσον�; See critical note. The καί after εἰ should certainly be omitted: whether the sentence depends upon what precedes, or should be independent and interrogative, is more doubtful: comp. 2 Corinthians 12:19; 2 Corinthians 10:7. Both arrangements make good sense; but the latter is more vigorous. If I love you more abundantly, am I loved the less? This is not an instance of εἰ introducing a direct question, as in Luke 13:23; Luke 22:49; Acts 1:6; Acts 19:2; &c. The εἰ belongs to the first clause only, not to the sentence. ‘If I show my special love for you by working among you for nothing, are you going to allow that very thing to estrange you from me?’