The considerations which support the Apostolic Authorship are chiefly the following:—(1) the evidence of early Christian tradition imbedded in history is practically unanimous in its favor, and the book was accepted as the Apostle’s without question by the church in Asia where it originated: (2) the internal evidence is to most minds convincing and even decisive, viz. (a) the Author declares himself to be John, and addresses the churches in Asia as their “brother, and partaker in tribulation,” and there is no satisfactory historical evidence of any other John in Asia, except the Apostle, of sufficient standing and influence to have spoken to the churches with the authority of a prophet;(14) (b) there is a deep and essential similarity of thought, diction, and doctrine in the Apocalypse and in John’s Gospel and Epistles which outweighs all differences of language, grammar, and style that appear upon the surface; (c) there is an undercurrent “tragic tone” found in the Apocalypse, such as is manifest in all of John’s writings, especially when he deals with the sad and terrible phases of human life and character, and this serves to point toward the Apostle as the author. The grounds upon which the Apostolic Authorship is denied are:—(1) the general inconclusiveness of tradition, even though in this case the evidence is admitted to be particularly strong: (2) the pseudonymity of all other apocalypses, with the apparent exception of “The Shepherd of Hermas”, and hence the probability that this in a similar way may have been written under the assumed name of John in order to give it acceptance:(15) (3) the marked differences observable between the Apocalypse and John’s Gospel and Epistles, viz. (a) the Greek of the Apocalypse is full of striking peculiarities, of solecisms, and of Hebraisms, quite at variance with the purer style of the other Johannine writings;(16) (b) the spirit of the Apocalypse as revealed in its ideas, terms, tone, and temper, differs widely from that of the Gospel and Epistles. These differences, however, it should be noted, were recognized and their force as objections to a common authorship was felt as early as the time of Dionysius (circ. A. D. 260), for they are apparent to every careful student of the Greek text; but they may be accounted for in a good degree by the difference of occasion, purpose, and theme, as well as of form and structure incident to the choice of a literary style that has definite and necessary limitations. The differences have also been further accounted for on the part of some by accepting the earlier date of the Apocalypse, which in that case is assigned to the period just preceding the fall of Jerusalem. The peculiarities of language are in this view attributable to an imperfect knowledge of Greek, which was later overcome by John’s long residence in Ephesus, while the apocalyptic form and general contents are held to indicate an earlier stage of Christian