in favour of this latter reading. The repeated ὑμᾶς emphasises the contrast between the readers (“to remind you, you who know it already”’) and the libertines previously spoken of. The repetition here may be compared with the repeated ὑμῖν of v. 3.
ἅπαξ ante πάντα ABCL. 13. 31. Vulg. Ante ὅτι K. Ante Aadv . (Syrr.) Arm. Ante ἐκγῆς Αἰγ. Clem. 280 (and 997) Did. Cassiod. ὅτι κύριος σώσας τὸν λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Aiy. ἅπαξ Sah., ὅτι ἅπαξ κύριος σώσας λαὸν αὐτοῦ Boh. Om. ἅπαἃ Lucif. 28. [ᾶπαξ is so placed in Syrr. as to be connected with σώσας ‘‘ when he had once saved them,’’ G.]
παντα ABCN 13 Vulg. ντ. Boh. Arm. Aeth. Lucif. [In the App. to WH (Sel. Readings, p. 106) it is suggested that this may be a primitive error for πάντας (cf. 1 John ii. 20) found in Syr 1], τοῦτο 31 KL. Sah.
ὅτι] add. 6 C.2 KL. 31. Arm. Clem. 280. Om. ABN 13.
κύριος] ΔΟΚΙ,. Syrh. Θεὸς Ο. Tol. Όντο Arm. Clem. Lucif. ᾿Ιησοῦς AB 13 Vulg. Boh. Sah. Aeth. [In Asp. to WH. (Sel. Readings, p. 106) it is suggested that there may have been some primitive error, ‘“‘apparently OTIKC (ὅτι Κύριος), and ΟΤΙΤΟ (Srv? Ιήησους) for OTIO (ὅτι 4) ”.]
γῆς] om. SyrP.
It appears to me that the true reading of the passage is ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, εἰδότας ὑμᾶς πάντα, ὅτι Κύριος ἅπαξ λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας τὸ δεύτερον [τοὺς] μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν. I see no difficulty in πάντα, which gives a reason for the use of the word ὑπομνῆσαι, “I need only remind you, because you already know all that I have to say”. It was easy for the second ὑμᾶς to be omitted as un- necessary, and then the word ἅπαξ might be inserted in its place partly for rhythmical reasons; but it is really unmeaning after εἰδότας : the knowledge of the incidents, which are related in this and the following verses, is not a knowledge for good and all, such as the faith spoken of in ver. 3. On the other hand, ἅπαξ is very appropriate if taken with λαὸν σώσας (a people was saved out of Egypt once for all), and it prepares the way for τὸ δεύτερον. For the reading πάντας I see no reason. Can it be assumed that all who are addressed should be familiar with the legends contained in the Book of Enoch and the Assumgtion of Moses, to which allusion is made in what fol- lows? It is surely much more to the point for the writer to say, as he does again below (ver. 17), that he is only repeating what is generally known, though it need not be known to every individual. As to Hort’s suggestion on the word κύριος, that the original was ὅτι 6 (λαὸν σώσας), 1 think the fact of the variants is better explained by Spitta, who considers that the abbreviations I€, KC, 6€ might easily be confused, if the first letter was faintly written, and that
1“ This is an error: the two best MSS. of ῥ represent wavra.” α.