Tischendorf's assertion that the prolixity of the expression [Greek: ephonesen ek tou mnemeiou kai egeiren auton ek nekron] is inconsistent with [Greek: hote][101],--may surprise, but will never convince any one who is even moderately acquainted with St. John's peculiar manner. The same mistake--of [Greek: hoti] for [Greek: hote]--is met with at ver. 41 of the same chapter. 'These things said Isaiah _because_ he saw His glory' (St. John xii. 41). And why not '_when_ he saw His glory'? which is what the Evangelist wrote according to the strongest attestation. True, that eleven manuscripts (beginning with [Symbol: Aleph]ABL) and the Egyptian versions exhibit [Greek: hoti]: also Nonnus, who lived in the Thebaid (A.D. 410): but all other MSS., the Latin, Peshitto, Gothic, Ethiopic, Georgian, and one Egyptian version:-- Origen[102],--Eusebius in four places[103],--Basil[104],--Gregory of Nyssa twice[105],--Didymus three times[106],--Chrysostom twice[107],-- Severianus of Gabala[108];--these twelve Versions and Fathers constitute a body of ancient evidence which is overwhelming. Cyril three times reads [Greek: hoti][109], three times [Greek: hote][110],--and once [Greek: henika][111], which proves at least how he understood the place. Sec. 2. [A suggestive example[112] of the corruption introduced by a petty Itacism may be found in Rev. i. 5, where the beautiful expression which has found its way into so many tender passages relating to Christian devotion, 'Who hath _washed_[113] us from our sins in His own blood' (A.V.), is replaced in many critical editions (R.V.) by, 'Who hath _loosed_[114] us from our sins by His blood.' In early times a purist scribe, who had a dislike of anything that savoured of provincial retention of Aeolian or Dorian pronunciations, wrote from unconscious bias [Greek: u] for [Greek: ou], transcribing [Greek: lusanti] for [Greek: lousanti] (unless he were not Greek scholar enough to understand the difference): and he was followed by others, especially such as, whether from their own prejudices or owing to sympathy with the scruples of other people, but at all events under the influence of a slavish literalism, hesitated about a passage as to which they did not rise to the spiritual height of the precious meaning really conveyed therein. Accordingly the three uncials, which of those that give the Apocalypse date nearest to the period of corruption, adopt [Greek: u], followed by nine cursives, the Harkleian Syriac, and the Armenian versions. On the other side, two uncials--viz. B^{2} of the eighth century and P of the ninth--the Vulgate, Bohairic, and Ethiopic, write [Greek: lousanti] and--what is most important--all the other cursives except the handful just mentioned, so far as examination has yet gone, form a barrier which forbids intrusion.]