Is Revelation 20-22 a Later Addition?

Someone recently told me that he believes that the last three chapters of Revelation are in direct contradiction to the last eleven chapters of Ezekiel because of the timing of the resurrection of the dead (Ezekiel 37 and Revelation 20) and other details about the New Jerusalem. He couldn't see any way to reconcile these two passages, so he concluded that Revelation 20-22 must have been added after the early church had been heavily corrupted by Greek influence.

After reading the relevant chapter of his book twice, here was my response:

After reading chapter 9 of your book, Ezekiel 37-48, and Revelation 20-22 once again, here are my final thoughts on the matter:

Ezekiel 37 isn't a literal resurrection of the dead, but a restoration of the nation of Israel that happens immediately before or after the onset of the Millennial Era. Ezekiel 40-48 are mostly metaphor about an idealized people of Israel, their repentance and restoration, a righteous remnant of the priesthood, and the adoption of righteous Torah-keepers from the nations. The temple and city described in much detail aren't a literal temple and city, but a pattern to which God desires Israel to conform. I believe for at least two reasons that even the later description of the division of the land is almost certainly a metaphor: 1) The apportioned land is only a fraction of what God promised to Israel, 2) the tribal allocations are parallel strips of land with no regard to terrain, natural boundaries, or sizes of the tribes.

In Revelation 20, only vs 1-10 are about the Millennial Era, what you refer to as the Kingdom age. V11 begins the final resurrection and judgment and chapter 21 represents the onset of a recreated universe populated only by the resurrected righteous. It's possible that the new earth is metaphor, but since this follows the 1000 year reign, resurrection of all the dead, and the final judgment, it is clearly a different kind of world than what existed during the Millennial Era. During the Millennium, the nations still exist, sin and death are still present. Yeshua's rule will be absolute within the fully realized land of Israel, but the nations will be mostly autonomous. After the final judgment, all of those things have been abolished.

At first, Isaiah 65 seems to support the idea that the new heaven and earth of Revelation 21 is metaphor, but the new heaven and earth of Isaiah 65 still has death and sin, so I don't think they are talking about the same thing.

As for the validity of Revelation 20-22, the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers quoted from all three chapters.

• Ireneaus (130-202 AD) quoted numerous passages from Revelation 20-21 in Against Heresies.
• Justin Martyr (100-165 AD) made a direct reference to Revelation 20:4-5 in Dialogue with Trypho.
• Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD) quoted from Rev 21:6 in an address on plagiarisms. 
• Tertullian (155-220 AD) quoted and referenced numerous passages from Revelation 20-22 in Against Marcion. 
• Hypolytus (170-235 AD) quoted from Rev 20:6 and 22:15 in his Treatise on Christ and Antichrist. 
• Cyprian (210-258 AD) quoted Rev 22:10-12 in his Treatise on the Advantage of Patience and Rev 22:4-5 in his Exhortation to Martyrdom. 

There are more. If it were only a couple of quotes from one or two authors, it would at least be possible that Revelation 20-22 were added in a later century and then a few quotes inserted into those extrabiblical writers to add support. However, there are dozens of quotes from numerous authors throughout the second and third centuries. This shows that the final 3 chapters of Revelation were present by 165 AD at the latest and so it seems very unlikely that they were not original with John.

I should add that I do not believe any of those church fathers are reliable theologians and some of them were heretics of the worst kind, but that's beside the point. They all quoted from the last three chapters of Revelation. Whatever one might think of the men and their theologies, the textual witness is very strong evidence that Revelation 20-22 is legitimate.

Whenever anyone asserts that some part of the Bible should be removed because he doesn't agree with the content, you need to be immediately on your guard. Don't take anything at face value. Test everything. Verify every claim. Look for alternative explanations.