I don't know about the rest of you, but in my day to day life I tend to think I am right about most things. If another driver honks their horn at me, I immediately assume "he's an asshole" (unless it's a "she" when a switch over to calling her whatever is appropriate - I don't know why I refuse to apply "asshole" to women or whether that is a "good thing" or latent "misogyny" - who knows). The point is if most of us (and I assume that I am not alone in my self-centeredness) find it hard to be open-minded regarding our inferiority and unreliability in the cosmos with regards to banal things like driving how much more so with respect to religion.
Whether we are atheists or believers the human mind always strives for "sameness." The simplest path to sameness is the default assumption of personal infallibility. I was put on this earth "for a reason." That "reason" is to keep doing what I am doing. I do what I do not as a matter of random chance but purpose. What is the ultimate purpose of my being? Whatever beliefs and practices my parents and whatever other ancestors that touch my consciousness. It's so banal and predictable.
One of the things that many of our ancestors believed in (not mine but that's another story) is the version of early Christian history contained in the Acts of the Apostles. Clement of Alexandria is the first person to cite material from this "history" (Clement is older than Irenaeus because Irenaeus repeated cites from Clement's work the Stromateis) and Clement thinks that Luke was a second century figure. The complexities of who believed what, when and how and why doesn't concern us right now. The point is that while our culture has given Acts a blank check to define the history of Christianity for us and all future generations, it is recognized by many second century Christians as a false history (i.e. Tatian, Marcion etc).
It becomes impossible to ignore that not only is the "totality" of inherited history about the origins of Christianity that have come down us is "wrong" but quite specifically the original centrality of "Paul" was obscured or diminished. We actually have early Church Fathers who consistently complain about "those who exaggerate the significance of Paul" - that he wasn't the one who "knew everything" or was smarter or better or more knowledgeable or "more blessed" than the other apostles (and whenever we hear statements like this "other apostles" who the Patristic authorities really have in mind is Peter.
Why does any of this matter? For scholars who study the Bible this question has great personal value. These people spend a great part of their life acquiring "expertise" over this subject matter and it is worth noting that in the study of humanity there are always really two types of knowledge - (a) the knowledge of what successive generations believe and then (b) what actually happened. With respect to (a) this is epitomized by the term "Nicene." Scholars pass on an inherited notion that our inherited tradition is for instance "Nicene" because a group of scholars at the end of the Western Roman Empire pretended that the tradition associated with Athanasius was confirmed at Nicaea. This is patently untrue. The Arians undoubtedly triumphed at Nicaea. Eusebius of Nicomedia rather than Athanasius baptized Constantine. The problem for the circle of Arius was simply that they failed to "get the last word" as barbarian hordes sacked Rome at the beginning of the fifth century CE and so "Nicene" was ultimately associated with the apologists for their adversary Athanasius.
In the very same way, the apostle Paul was originally something or someone entirely other than the subordinated figure in the pantheon of Irenaeus of Lyons. Paul stood alone and apart from Peter. Paul was, for his supporters greater, smarter, better, "faster" and stronger than Peter. The unfortunate part is that we can't nail down who, what, where or how the original Pauline tradition with as great a certainty as the "un-Nicene" historicity of our Nicene tradition. Even then, though we have some of the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea even the un-Nicene character of our Nicene tradition has its difficulties and limitations. The bottom line is that the reconstruction of early Christian history is very, very uncertain.
It is always easier to reconstruct the negative aspects of this historical situation - the "lies," the misrepresentations, the shortcomings than the "full picture." Such is the case with our false canon of Pauline of writings. Paul originally wrote a "Gospel of Jesus" (often referenced as the "Gospel of the Lord"). This is certainly the gospel "according to Mark" without a clear ascription of authorship. The Philosophumena hints at this as does Origen's inevitable coupling of Mark 1:1 with Romans 1:1. There is something unmistakably Markan about Pauline theology (despite arguments to the contrary).
The "Marcionites" (better simply "early Pauline Christians") claimed that our inherited canon of letters was falsified from theirs. Of course they are right. We know this not because of any statement in Tertullian or Epiphanius but because of the statement from 2 Thessalonians 2:2 which was always taken to mean that a "false" collection of letters circulated in antiquity which identified Paul as saying the Parousia (the Second Coming) had already taken place.
Of course the earliest Christians thought the Parousia had taken place in their lifetime. As noted at the beginning of this scribble, we're all self-centered assholes. We all things not only the world but history itself was made for "us." If the first Christian converts were to find out that Jesus visited the world in their life time but that the world would continue for two thousand years with no Parousia they would have stopped being Christians. Perhaps we only live in one of many universes, the one in which there is no Parousia for two thousand years. My father died without seeing the financial meltdown of 2008, something he had been predicting for many years. I may or may not live to see nuclear armageddon even though I was afforded a vision of it when I was lying in a gutter in Toronto's Chinatown in 1985.
The situation with regards to 2 Thessalonians 2:2 is neatly summed up in the writings of the twelfth century monk Euthymius Zigabenus:
Since in the first Epistle he wrote to them that he prays to God night and day to see them face to face, so that by his own living voice he might supply what is lacking in their faith, and yet he had not yet come to them, being frequently hindered, he learned that certain deceivers were going round among them saying that the Coming of Christ and the Judgment had already arrived, reporting to them even certain sayings (λόγια τινά) as though the Apostle Paul had made these things known to them through them, and even producing forged letters. He was therefore compelled to write this present Epistle, and through it to make up for the lack of his bodily presence among them.
In the world of 2 Thessalonians itself, παρουσία here really is the eschatological coming of Jesus – the “day of the Lord,” with resurrection and judgment. The author explicitly links it to “the coming (παρουσία) of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him” (2 Thess 2:1) and then warns them not to be shaken by claims “as though from us … that the day of the Lord has already come” (ἐνέστηκεν ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ κυρίου, 2:2). Virtually all commentators, whether they think the letter is genuine or pseudonymous, read this as a correction of rumors that the final Parousia has already happened or is presently underway.
The point of course is that no Christian believer of the earliest period had any inkling the physical universe would continue for two thousand years after the crucifixion. Moreover, the definition of what the Parousia or the "day of the Lord" was is unclear. What is clear however is that at the time that our canon of Pauline writings was being assembled the editor/author of this material witnessed the existence of more primitive, more authentic letters of Paul which contained certain sayings or oracles (λόγια τινά) which understand the "day of the Lord" had already come. This collection of Pauline writings was certainly one and the same with the Marcionite canon even though this is never made explicit.
The difficulty now is coming to grips with how "ur-Paul" was defining the Parousia or rather it is a difficulty for scholars who study the Bible with all their inherited (wrong) answers. We already know Paul believed that he was the "restanding" of Jesus, that he was the Parousia. It is plain from the earliest Pauline traditions like the community at Harran in the writings of Hegemonius where it is taken for granted that Paul was the Paraclete, the messianic "comforter" or advocate, that "Christ spoke in him" and the like. This understanding becomes confirmed by the further layer of the arch-heretic Mani coming to the town and arguing Paul never said that he was the Paraclete, he said I was (i.e. Mani argued that Paul heralded his coming).
The history of humanity is a never ending stream of narcissists and self-centeredness.