Many commentators believe that II Thessalonians is pseudepigraphic, that is to say that it was written by a different author from the one named.  Commentators note the apparent discrepancies in the eschatological approach from I Thessalonians, in which Paul says that the Second Coming will come at any moment, without warning, whereas II Thessalonians says that various events have to come first.

We looked at the dramatic “little apocalypse” in II Thessalonians which prophesies the arrival of the “Man of Sin” who will set himself up as God and sit in the Temple.  Since the Temple was effectively destroyed in 70 CE, we considered that the “Man of Sin” would have to be dated before then.  Three candidates were considered:

1.         Nero, who claimed divinity in his lifetime

2.         Gaius (“Caligula”) who also claimed divinity

3.       Vespasian

Nero did claim divine status, but was not particularly concerned with the temple, though it was during his reign that the temple was besieged and by Roman troops.  Vespasian ruled as emperor (and was ex officio deified) when his son Titus took the temple.  Sacrifices were made in the temple to the legionary standards – and extreme blasphemy for the Jews.

Gaius Caligula was the first Roman emperor to claim divinity in his lifetime.  In an ongoing dispute with the Jews, he ordered a statute of himself as Zeus to be set up in the temple.  Herod Agrippa I tried to dissuade him, and had some success unltil the general in charge of the operation asked that it be postponed.  Gaius advised the general to commit suicide, and insisted that the operation go ahead. This was only thwarted by the assassination of Gaius in 41 CE.

Could Gaius be the “Man of Sin” and Agrippa the shadowy force that was “restraining him”?   The difficulty is that the best date for Thessalonians is around 50 CE.  We hypothesized that the “little apocalypse” came  from an earlier document, contemporary with the Gaius crisis.  A similar passage occurs in Luke 13.