Whew! Not a single reference from The Bible.

This is a fair criticism in that I didn't provide Internal evidence. However, I provided External evidence. This is actually part of the tests of historiography, which is used for all books of antiquity and judged by for their authenticity. There are a total of three tests, (1) Bibliography test, (2) Internal Evidence test, and (3) External Evidence test.

The Internal Evidence test examines what the writers have said about the events that took place in the text itself. Aristotle’s dictum is implied – “The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, and not arrogated by the critic to himself.” As an analogy, if I told you I owned a green coat, it is your responsibility to prove I do not own one. Until then, it is assumed that this is indeed the truth. In law, this premise is called the law of presumption.  

What I provided was External Evidence test. It accounts for whether other historical material confirms or denies the internal evidence found in the manuscripts. For example, there are over 21 documents that are widely accepted by archaeologists outside of the books of the Bible. These all confirm the message of the New Testament. Some of these are Flavius Josephus, Justin Martyr, Plineus Secondus, Tertullian, Cornelius Tacitus, Hippolytus, Polycarp, Lucian of Samosata, Suetonius, Thallus, Phlegon, Mara bar-Serepion, the Talmud, Eusibius, Irenaeaus, Ignatius, Origen, Cyprian, Clement of Rome, et. al.

The last test of historiography is the Bibliography test. This is where the number of manuscripts and the earliest copies are evaluated. For example, Aristotle wrote his writings of poetics in 343 BC and yet the earliest copy [manuscript] we have is dated 1100 AD. That’s nearly a 1,400-year gap in time. Only 5 manuscripts are in existence. Caesar composed his history of the Gallic wars between 58 – 50 BC and yet the earliest copy we have is a 1,000 years after his death. Only 9 to 10 copies now exist. In comparison, there are 24,363 manuscripts of the Bible. After the papyri manuscripts were discovered, an abundance of other manuscripts came to light. We have manuscripts that date to 60 AD within a generation of Jesus' live (i.e. Magdalene papyrus, 7Q4 and 7Q5 of Qumran 68 AD). 

Your criticism isn't the Bibliography test that's in dispute. Your criticism is for the lack of Internal evidence I provided. Fair enough, let's look at that. I'll start with the following:

Revelation 2:9 ​​ I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

Revelation 3:9 ​​ Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

Who are "them" if they are not Jews? Many people would look no further than what is written. However, God calls us to know His Word. Etymology is very important. In fact, when we apply this to the often used word 'Jew', we find through etymology that it never existed during Roman times. In fact, it didn't exist until the 16th century. This word 'Jew' has been intermingled with the words 'Israelite', 'Judahite', 'Judean', 'pharisee', and 'Edomite' for over 400 years. It's use in the Bible is ambiguous and unfortunately needs to be deciphered for every verse that it is used. Some times it refers to the Roman province of Judea, other times it refers more accurately to Edomites. Other times it references 'Israelites".

Word manipulation and name-stealing has a long history, The word 'Jew' derives actually from the French 'Juerie'. I will get to the significance of this in a moment. But first, the history of Judah, as a living, breathing individual, and the land of his posterity, it was called Judah until his posterity was forcibly and completely removed from the land of Judah to Babylonia. The proper word describing Judah's offspring and descendants has always been Judahites. The word 'Jew' never derived from Judah and certainly did not exist during the Roman times as I will explain in the following paragraphs. First, let's look at where the word Judahite is used in the Bible.

Some Biblical excerpts using the word Judahite:

2 Ki 18:26 Eliakim son of Hilkiah, Shebna, and Joah said to the chief adviser, "Speak to your servants in Aramaic, for we understand it. Don't speak with us in the Judahite dialect in the hearing of the people who are on the wall."

2Ki 18:28 The chief adviser then stood there and called out loudly in the Judahite dialect, "Listen to the message of the great king, the king of Assyria.

2Ki 25:23 All of the officers of the Judahite army and their troops heard that the king of Babylon had appointed Gedaliah to govern. So they came to Gedaliah at Mizpah. The officers who came were Ishmael son of Nethaniah, Johanan son of Kareah, Seraiah son of Tanhumeth the Netophathite, and Jaazaniah son of the Maacathite.

1Ch 4:18 (His Judahite wife gave birth to Jered the father of Gedor, Heber the father of Soco, and Jekuthiel the father of Zanoah.) These were the sons of Pharaoh's daughter Bithiah, whom Mered married.

2Ch 13:13 Now Jeroboam had sent some men to ambush the Judahite army from behind. The main army was in front of the Judahite army; the ambushers were behind it.

2Ch 13:16 The Israelites fled from before the Judahite army, and God handed them over to the men of Judah.

2Ch 32:18 They called out loudly in the Judahite dialect to the people of Jerusalem who were on the wall, trying to scare and terrify them so they could seize the city.

Certainly, these verses above could have had the word "Jew' used instead of Judahite. But, it is clear the Bible is talking about the offspring of Judah. In other parts of the Bible the words have been intermingled along with Judea, Judean, Israelite, and so forth.

Rome referred to the region in the Latin as 'Iudaea' (Engl.: 'Judea'), which is derived from the Greek 'Idumea'; which means the "land of Edomites" and those people of the conquered region as 'Iudaeans' (Judeans). From the time that Alexander the Great conquered the region, it was called Idumea. The influence of the Greeks in the entire Levant was so culturally dominating that the Hebrew written language was threatened. This written language is referred to as paleo-Hebrew, which has been lost in antiquity for more than 2000 years. Thanks to Ptolemy Philaphelphus and the 70 Isrealite scholars he assembled, the Greek Septuagint was written in 256 BC and as a result saved the Old Testament from being lost in antiquity. The international language throughout the eastern Mediterranean was koine Greek. Without records, it is plausible that Jesus may have read from the Greek Septuagint. We don't know for sure. Nevertheless, the Romans readily accepted the Greek influence existing there and added their own Latin version. The Romans simply used the Latinized version ('Iudaea') of the Greek 'Idumea'. 'Iudaea' in English is Judea.

Much later the word Jew comes into existence in England in circa 1600s, which coincides with a wave of Yiddish immigrants coming from France and Deutschland. These Yiddish settlers came from eastern Europe and originated from Khazaria, not the Middle East, but rather the steppes of Caspian and Black Seas, which had since fallen to the proxy Byzantine and Caliphate conquering armies. The French and Europeans viewed these immigrants negatively and treated them similarly to gypsies. They allowed them to quarter in only a designated area of the city. A French derogatory term for 'ghetto' and the Yiddish district of town was called – 'Jeuerie'; "ghetto", from Anglo-French 'Juerie', Old French 'Juierie’ or the later English version 'Jewry'. Originally the English term 'Jewry' referred to those immigrants coming from Eastern European people who spoke Yiddish (Ashkenazi).

Returning to Revelation 2:9 and 3:9, we see from Strong's Concordance G2453. The Greek word Ἰουδαῖος Ioudaîos is used. Who is Ioudaîos?

G2453 Ioudaios – belonging to Judah (as respects to birth, origin, heritage).

Related words are:

G2448 Iouda – Judah = those who praise Yah. The fourth son of Jacob. The tribe that were the offspring of Judah. The region occupied by the tribe.

G2455 Ioudas – Judah, son of Jacob. The offspring of Judah referred to themselves as Judahites.

In this context Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 tells us these people are not sons of Jacob; the Judahites, but 'someone' else fraudulently identifying themselves as Judahites.

In 2001, the third edition of the Bauer lexicon, one of the most highly respected dictionaries of Biblical Greek,[12] supported translation of the term as "Judean", writing:

"Incalculable harm has been caused by simply glossing Ioudaios with ‘Jew,’ for many readers or auditors of Bible translations do not practice the historical judgment necessary to distinguish between circumstances and events of an ancient time and contemporary ethnic-religious-social realities, with the result that anti-Judaism in the modern sense of the term is needlessly fostered through biblical texts.[13]"

This statement is so true......

Academic publications in the last ten to fifteen years increasingly use the term Judeans rather than Jews. This is the Roman name for the region. Most of these writers cite Steve Mason's 2007 article, "Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History". Mason and others argue that "Judean" is a more precise and a more ethical translation of ioudaios than is "Jew".[15]

There is a lot more information on this that I can provide... The important thing is knowing God's Word is researching it from the etymological aspect to understand how words have been changed over time and applying the Tests of historiography............