TNDL: “SATAN, THE PERSISTENT REBELLIOUS RED DRAGON, WHO IS AGAINST THE MOST HIGH AND HIS CHURCH! SEE REVELATION.”

Revelation of John, the original Jewish version
Apocalypse composition, dating & authorship
Front page: Daniel and Revelation (with website search function)
You may email the author, and learn more about him here
Note: all emphases are mine.
See here for the original Jewish version without comments
A) Introduction:
From The Catholic Encyclopedia "... the theory advanced by the German scholar Vischer. He holds the Apocalypse to have been originally a purely Jewish composition, and to have been changed into a Christian work by the insertion of those sections that deal with Christian subjects. From a doctrinal point of view, we think, it cannot be objected to. There are other instances where inspired writers have availed themselves of non-canonical literature. Intrinsically considered it is not improbable. The Apocalypse abounds in passages which bear no specific Christian character but, on the contrary, show a decidedly Jewish complexion."
From The Jewish Encyclopedia, an article by Crawford Howell Toy (Christian scholar, D.D., LL.D.) and Kaufmann Kohler (Ph.D.):
"The last book in the New Testament canon, yet in fact one of the oldest; probably the only Judæo-Christian work which has survived the Paulinian transformation of the Church. The introductory verse betrays the complicated character of the whole work. It presents the book as a "Revelation which God gave . . . to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass," and at the same time as a revelation of Jesus Christ to "his servant John." According to recent investigations, the latter part was interpolated by the compiler, who worked the two sections of the book, the main apocalypse (ch. iv.-xxi. 6) and the letters to the "seven churches" (i.-iii. and close of xxii.) into one so as to make the whole appear as emanating from John, the seer of the isle of Patmos in Asia Minor (see i. 9, xxii. 8), known otherwise as John the Presbyter. The anti-Paulinian character of the letters to the seven churches and the anti-Roman character of the apocalyptic section have been a source of great embarrassment, especially to Protestant theologians, ever since the days of Luther; but the apocalypse has become especially important to Jewish students since it has been discovered by Vischer (see bibliography) that the main apocalypse actually belongs to Jewish apocalyptic literature."
Mostly in agreement with the above, first, I'll provide a short synopsis (an outline of my conclusions) and then some evidence about the authorship. Next, I'll proceed to my reconstruction of the original non-Christian/Jewish text (about 288 verses), by carefully extracting it out from the later canonical one (399 verses), christianized through additions within the earlier text. Here, with inserted comments all along, the points previously postulated will make a lot of sense (I hope you'll agree, as some of my previous readers did: see here).
My main goal will be to demonstrate that many parts of 'Revelation' could not have been written by a Christian. However, I do not claim to be exact about my verse by verse rendition of the original version (but I am confident to be correct for most of it).
B) Synopsis:
The Jewish original version of Revelation (or Apocalypse) of John, much more coherent than the final one, was written very likely (in Greek) late 70 or 71 C.E. in Syrian Antioch by a temple of Jerusalem ex-priest named John. This work offered an explanation for the holocaust of 70 C.E., with the destruction of Jerusalem & its temple, all of that at the hands of the Romans, and also a badly needed hope for the Diaspora Jews, so they would not lose their faith. The apocalypse gave also the opportunity for our ex-priest to vent off his considerable anger against the Gentiles and, above all, Rome. Then the author adopted Christianity and was later known as "Presbyter John" in Asia Minor, an elder/apostle based in Ephesus.
John claimed to have experienced the apocalyptic vision (or dream) and written about it during Emperor Galba's short reign (68-69 C.E.) (as explained later).
The imagery is very much inspired by the O.T. books, such as 'Ezekiel', 'Isaiah', 'Zechariah', 'Joel' & 'Daniel'. And John's vision, which is full of (apocalyptic) precise details, is incorrect on many physical items, such as the origin of wind & rain, the shape of the earth, the size of great stars, etc., denoting a knowledge rather biblical & ancient but certainly not "revealed".
This apocalypse was added on, updated & christianized around 95 C.E. and, according to the majority opinion (& myself), released during the "tribulations" under Emperor Domitian.
Remark:
There are mentions of resurrections (specified three and a half days after death) & ascensions to heaven, crucifixion of an "our Lord" (all of those in Rome), a harvesting "Son of Man" and a woman giving birth to a male child-Messiah (with no mention of any father) who is immediately saved (from Satan) in heaven as the future ruler over the Gentiles. Could our author have known about Mark's gospel (GMark) and paralleled and/or outdid its claims?
Other examples:
a) In GMark, Jesus' death lasts 40 hours (maximum) but in 'Revelation' it is 84 hours for the two witnesses.
b) In GMark, Jesus' body is left alone, with its revival and ascension not witnessed. However in 'Revelation', the two dead bodies, their revival and ascension are witnessed by a crowd.
C) Authorship:
The most reliable piece of evidence about the existence of presbyter John comes from Eusebius (the influential bishop of Cesarea, Palestine, early 4th century) in his 'History of the Church', the testimony of Papias (the alleged bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor), who was probably a young man at the end of the first century.
HC, 3, 39 "And whenever anyone came who had been [let's notice the past tense] a follower [contemporary of Papias] of the presbyters [those allegedly had listened to the twelve, but are likely deceased then], I inquired into the words of the presbyters, what Andrew and Peter had said, or Philip, or Thomas or James or John [the fisherman and member of the twelve] or Matthew, or any other disciples of the Lord, and what Aristion and the presbyter John, disciples of the Lord, were still saying.
[presbyter John is still alive then, but not John the fisherman, whose words (allegedly) are reported third hand some two generations after]"
Polycrates, a late 2nd century Christian, wrote:
Eusebius' History of the Church, 3, 31 "... John, who leant back on the Lord's breast,
[as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" in Jn13:23-25, who died very late (21:20-23)]12.