For example, the Apocalypse of St. Paul claims legitimacy by echoing Paul's recollection of heaven (i.e. "...I was caught up in my body to the third heaven, and this is what I heard") and even though that's directly contradictory to something Paul says in 2 Corinthians, it was hugely popular anyway. I know that's not Revelation but it's the one that immediately came to mind.
Basically I'm wondering how the author of Revelation (mostly just because of how apocalyptic it is) was able to convince people that it WAS divine insight and came from a higher authority.
I'm not sure this is an AskHistorians question, you might want to try /r/AcademicBiblical/ or a literature subreddit.
Your question is essentially what makes a work popular and successful. While there are many answers to that question, I would suggest that resonance with the audience is the most important quality. The audience for The Apocalypse of John felt it spoke to them, and thus it endured. The work would have been understood to be predicting the end of the power of Rome, which was a message that appealed to early Christians