Apparently, Funk needed this rehabilitative journey because of his own fundamentalist childhood, from which he seeks to distance himself.As such, this book is must reading for anyone who wishes to understand the psychological and sociological drives that stand behind much of what is nowadays presented as the fruits of “objective” historical research by Funk and those of his ilk. Part one lays out the methodological constraints Funk appropriates in his attempt to uncover the historical Jesus and describes the alleged evolution of the early church’s Christology.The letter proceeds to warn readers not to be misled by preaching that the Kingdom of God was “at hand” but that a sequence of events had to happen first. So let’s see how the author of this letter, the one writing in the name of Paul, introduces and sets out his view of prophecy to the churches. Goulder believes the author (whom he takes to be Paul) took it straight from the Book of Daniel.He divides the prophesied scenario into three phases. Christians are being persecuted, as was pointed out in the preceding chapter. It is not yet removed but it will be when time has come for the next phase. In the first chapters of Daniel the Jews are persecuted.The book closes with an epilogue in which Funk presents 21 theses, which he takes as consequences of his ideas and which are supposed to guide our continued interest in the historical Jesus in this new post-Christian era.
It is important to consider these dates, as well as alternate earlier dates for the composition of the New Testament books when considering the development of the canon. For example, the likelihood that early Christians found Paul’s letters compelling and placed them into a collection with other letters seems somewhat more likely if they have been in used longer.  For treatment of this issue see Robinson’s Redating the New Testament.
2 Thessalonians appears to be a letter written by Paul.
It disarmingly warns readers to be on guard against letters that appear penned by “himself” yet are in fact forgeries.
Before delving into the debates surrounding the practical (and then formal) canonization of New Testament writings, a word must be said on the issues of oral tradition and the dating of the composition of New Testament writings.
Far too often scholars have used “oral tradition” as punt-that-question-down-the-road tactic, where everything potentially problematic with their historical reconstruction falls into the realm of “oral tradition”, that amorphus and generally unexplained phenomenon of antiquity. Metzger, The New Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Context, Abingdon Press, New York & Nashville, 1965, 273.