The question of Unity is one of modern literary criticism. The view now generally accepted that Jewish apocalypses, as we find them, are often of composite origin, representing an original writing to which various additions have been subsequently made by editors and redactors,(22) has had its influence upon the judgment formed by critics concerning the Apocalypse of John. The present tendency of critical investigation is to consider the book as a composite structure, and to direct its effort toward searching out the various sources from which it is supposed to be derived, and determining what parts of the book are original, as well as in pointing out various minor passages that are regarded as drawn from other sources, or are the work of a later hand. This tendency has been carried to such an extreme that the results are largely theoretical and inconclusive, depending upon the personal taste of the critic and having little force for other minds. The grounds upon which the unity of the book has been disputed are:—(1) Frequent breaks in continuity which make it difficult or impossible to trace the connection of thought: (2) a lack of harmony in its various conceptions that is more or less incongruous, and that is apparently inconsistent with its being the work of one author: (3) an apparent indication in various parts of the book of different dates of writing—see remarks in the section on Date. All of these reasons, however, if taken together, and it be granted that they are well‐founded, are yet insufficient to establish a diversity of authorship. The most that can be said is that they suggest it. For it should be remembered that logical sequence is not a quality of Apocalyptic thought; and also that there is not even an approximate agreement, as yet, among advanced scholars as to the character or extent of the material regarded as drawn from other sources.