Motive
Motive
If the writing is pseudepigraphic, the question arises, Why was it written? There were Christian writings in which a great name of the past was used to give respectability to what was said, but these seem all to be books that promote unorthodox teaching. Second Peter does nothing of the sort. Its teaching is quite respectable and in line with what other Christian teachers have said. It could quite easily go out under its author’s real name, or indeed under no name. We need a reason for choosing to send the little letter out under Peter’s name if we are to accept the pseudepigraphic hypothesis, and so far no sufficient reason seems to have appeared. It is usually said that the author chose Peter’s name to give authority to what he was writing. But he was writing orthodoxy, and for that no great name was needed.
It cannot be said that all the problems have been overcome by any who have written on this letter. So far as historical inquiry is concerned, we are reduced, in the end, to the probabilities. No conclusive reason has been given for denying that the letter is by the author it claims as its writer. None of the objections can be sustained, and it seems better to accept it at face value, as a genuine writing of the apostle Peter.