The Smart Fool, mentioned in these pages before, is once again not smart. He cites this essay by Paul Foster in favor of the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians. Problems? Sure. First, Nero redivivus was first mentioned in the reign of Diocletion, not Trajan. Also given that the alleged Neronic persecution of Christians didn't happen, it can't be that early, for this person to be Nero. Rather, it does seem to be a prima facie evidence of trying to explain away a delay in the parousia after the destruction of the temple. Indeed, one wonders if the author had perhaps a passing familiarity with the "little apocalypse" in Mark. Reading the whole of 2 Thessalonians 2, we have little idea who "the restrainer" is supposed to be, even less than the man of lawlessness, who is discussed by me in depth here. To me, it seems pretty clear that the time period before "the restrainer" is removed is NOT supposed to be brief. Beyond that, contra Foster, I noted that the man of lawlessness seems to at least pretend to arise from among the faithful. He is NOT, at a minimum, The Beast of Revelation, and writing anything that even leaves open the possibility that he is such, is bad exegesis.

2 Thessalonians 3, even more, seems to warn against expecting an imminent parousia. The readers are warned not to be idle, but "sober," although this doesn't use that exact word. The mindset in this sense halfway, or more, approaches the Pastorals.

The first part of 2 Thessalonians 2, before the man of lawlessness is introduced, warns again about expecting an imminent eschaton.

And, while 1 Thessalonians 4 doesn't say "it's tomorrow," the end of the chapter is laden with immanence, even, like John 21, referring to those still alive. Chapter 5 continues that.

Foster concludes with this in defense of 2 Thessalonians' authenticity in the face of all that:

The issue matters because if the authenticity of 2Thessalonians is estab-lished, then it allows a larger and richer range of material that provides insight into the apostle’s thought. Many of the debates surrounding the nature of Paul’s thought in Romans as being coherent, consistent, or otherwise, may be elucidated through the perspectives provided in 2Thessalonians in relation to eschatology. These developments reveal Paul to be capable of maturation in his theological conceptions, adaptable and responsive to pressing pastoral situations, and simul-taneously a robust defender of his core theological convictions.

I don't buy that. Some degree of immanence seems clear in not only 1 Thessalonians, but the other six authentic Pauline epistles, enough that Foster has much more explanatory burden left on WHY 2 Thessalonians is different if authentic.