He regarded the Apocalypse as the work of an inspired man but not of an Apostle ( Eusebius, Hist. During the fourth and fifth centuries the tendency to exclude the Apocalypse from the list of sacred books continued to increase in the Syro-Palestinian churches. He contents himself with the statement: "The Apocalypse is by some accepted among the canonical books but by others rejected" (Hist. IV, 33-36); nor does it occur on the list of the Synod of Laodicea, or on that of Gregory of Nazianzus.
He, therefore inclines to ascribe the works to different authors (Hist. The upholders of a common authorship reply that these differences may be accounted for by bearing in mind the peculiar nature and aim of each work. In conformity with other books of the same kind, e.g.Nor did the crudeness of diction on the part of the Apocalypse escape him.The Greek of the Gospel he pronounces correct as to grammar, and he even gives its author credit for a certain elegance of style.He next points out how the characteristic terminology of the Fourth Gospel , so essential to the Joannine doctrine, is absent in the Apocalypse.The terms, "life", "light", "grace", "truth", do not occur in the latter.