My theory is that is what is latent in the terrain of human psychology is a propensity to view misconceptions about which problem it is, as evidence there isn't one. When I stop to think about it, I realize that the misconceptions are evidence there is.
With that in mind: in what way should we terraform the latent terrain of human psychology to fix this problem? Because breaking up the tech companies seems like a way, but you seem to have a different one in mind.
I tend to agree with your general intuition that presupposing modern understandings creates all kinds of problems understanding ancient texts, some of which is in translation. But the specific case of "apokalypsis" it is kind of the opposite.
There is quite the extensive record of first/second century apocalyptic literature, (some of it even became the NT). These preserve remarkably detailed pictures of what apocalyptic thinking looked like long before Nicea.
The main thing to say is the concept of apocalypse was much broader than today's. To your question, it did mean a revelation of relationship with god, and then it also meant an end-of-times sense, and it also was political commentary, and it was also a conspiracy theory, etc. People did not distinguish between which modern, narrower concept they meant, because they actually meant the broad concept.
I suppose a different claim strikes me as false. "should have been deemed classified at the time they were sent" is one thing, "there was, in fact, confidential stuff in there" is a different thing.
I think a decent case can be made that one rounds up to the other, but I guess that case seems more like an argument to be made than a fact to be corrected.
To me, it is apparent that the data cannot support any clean division between two "sides", it tells a more complicated story about sometimes there was apostolic authorship, sometimes not, and sometimes we don't really know.
I would suggest that the real academic consensus is that we can confidently rule out the us-vs-them preoccupation that is common in lay discussion.
With that in mind: in what way should we terraform the latent terrain of human psychology to fix this problem? Because breaking up the tech companies seems like a way, but you seem to have a different one in mind.