Authoritative Interpretation of Revelation

I had a thought today about the Book of Revelation. 

The Apostle Peter said, No Prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation, right? He was referring to Old Testament Prophecy. That meant the Prophets' source was not themselves but the Holy Ghost. 

But Peter also said we have an authoritative source to interpret the Prophecies of Scripture - our source isn't ourselves. The authoritative source obviously was Jesus - with the Holy Ghost. Jesus expounded to His disciples all things in the Old Testament Scriptures concerning Himself. And He spoke with the disciples for 40 days concerning the Kingdom. The Apostles were eyewitnesses. So they authoritatively gave witness to the things Jesus said and did. So we have access to the authoritative interpretation of Old Testament Prophecy.

But what about Revelation? It was the last New Testament book written (allegedly). And it's a Prophecy - so there ought to be an authoritative rather than a private interpretation available.

That's been the problem - every one has tried interpreting it privately. But where's the authoritative interpretation? The Church fathers wrote their interpretations, but we don't have an interpretation by the Lord or by the Apostles. So how do we source an authoritative interpretation?

And the thought that came to me is: the Apostles' doctrine is the last word and testimony. Peter said we have a more sure word of prophecy. Nothing can add to it, take away from it, or contradict it. Therefore we don't need an Apostle to write an interpretation of the Book of Revelation for us. Rather, the Epistles and Gospels are sufficient to us for doctrine. 

Therefore we don't need another authoritative book to explain Revelation to us - we can understand Revelation in terms of what we already know from the Gospels and Epistles. We only need to make Revelation fit with what the Apostles had already written.

If so, then Revelation can't contain any essential doctrinal components of the Gospel message which couldn't already be established from the Gospel and Epistles - or else God would have seen to it that the Apostles wrote an authoritative interpretation of Revelation for us. But He didn't.

So if Revelation isn't meant to teach anything new that can't already be established elsewhere in the New Testament, then that puts some pretty big qualifiers on what some of the visions in Revelation can mean!

For example, if the Gospels and Epistles don't teach a future Jewish, Old Covenant-style thousand year reign after Christ's Second Coming, then what authority do we have to assert that a symbolic vision in Revelation was intended to mean such a thing? Wouldn't that be a private interpretation? and yet many denominations make it an Essential Doctrine, or include it in their Statement of Faith.

It's common for people to look to the Church fathers, or Middle Ages writers, and contemporary writers to try to interpret Revelation - but shouldn't the already-established doctrine of the Apostles be all we need to interpret it?

Otherwise, the Church isn't based on the foundation of the Apostles and prophets - but on the Church fathers too!

So, the authoritative 'commentary' on Revelation is: Matthew to Jude!

Am I right?

Or can Revelation's symbols legitimately introduce new doctrine? 

Is Revelation really an add-on to supply essential elements of the Gospel message which were lacking everywhere else in the Bible? 

And if so, who can authoritatively interpret Revelation's visions for us, like the Lord and the Apostles interpreted Old Testament Prophecy for us?

Just today's thought during afternoon tea!