Of course they did. It was essential that the Petrine-Pauline rift be overcome once Judaism and Christianity definitely parted ways. Peter was essential because of the Gospels, but he and James the Just were Jews in practice, and Paul was essential in redefining the faith into a Gentile religion.
It was not written later to compromise, but a letter to churches undergoing severe persecution after Paul’s death, but before Peter’s
There was no persecution of Christians in Asia Minor during Peter's lifetime. That began at the end of emperor Domitian's reign (in the 90's of the 1st century). Peter is believed to have died around 65 AD or so. The only persecutions of Christians during +Peter's time was in Rome, yet 1 Peter clearly opens up with a different location:
... now for a little while you may have to suffer various trials...[1 Pet 1:1,6]
From your own citation. Donald Guthrie writes: “There has been such widespread assumption that Peter’s epistle is but an echo of Paulinism that it is refreshing to find an increasing tendency to mark the individual contribution of Peter in the field of New Testament theology...
Of course, there are die-hard apologists among conservative evangelicals. That doesn't mean he is right. For example he says:
What Peter's characteristic presentation? What other works, before 1 Peter, are attributed to Peter (and John) whom the Book of Acts described as to "uneducated and untrained men"? [Act 4:13]
Obviously you chose to cherry-pick one commentary that fit the evangelical point of view, and the rest are automatically discarded. I guess we can always stick our heads into the sand and pretend the sun doesn't shine.
“So strong is the evidence for the use of this epistle in the early church that some scholars have regarded it as proved and maintained that it was considered to be canonical as early as this word had a meaning.” There are parallels in Clement of Rome’s Epistle to the Corinthians, Ignatius, Barnabas, and Shepherd of Hermas. These may indicate borrowing, but not necessarily. Polycarp definitely quotes from it, though he does not identify the quoted material as coming from Peter. Irenaeus, however, does quote from it, and regards it as a genuine work of Peter. From the last third of the second century on, this letter is frequently regarded as Petrine, and is cited by Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Theophilus of Antioch, etc.
B. F. Westcott, “The Canon of the New Testament”,
There is not the least evidence to show that its authoriuy was ever been disputed, but on the other hand it does not seem to have been much read in the ltin churches althoughthat it was not unkown in these churches is shown by its presence in a large number of Old Latin manuscripts.”
Stibbs and Wallis, “1 Peter, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries”
“We may conclude, therefore, that, leaving aside for the moment any possible use of 1st Peter in other New Testament writings, wee find abundant evidence of its influence on the thought and expression of early Christians, much of its wide reception and general recognition as Peter’s and none whatever that it was attributed to anyone else. The judgment of Chase stands: “The only natural interpretation of the fact is from the first it was regarded as the work of that apostle.”
Both polycarp and Papias quote from the letter and attribute it to Peter. TGhe early church had refused to recognize fraudulent letters from “Peter” but recognized 1 Peter as authentic.
The persecution could have been the general persecution from the synagogues, Rome or Nero for the arson of Rome.
What are the sources tot he contrary except a personal bias?
“Obviously you chose to cherry-pick one commentary that fit the evangelical point of view, and the rest are automatically discarded. I guess we can always stick our heads into the sand and pretend the sun doesn’t shine.”
From Guthrie, “New Testament Introduction” 1st Peter,
(Guthrie is no evangelical nor ishe particularly conservative)
“So strong is the evidence for the use of this epistle in the early church that some scholars have regarded it as proved and maintained that it was considered to be canonical as early as this word had a meaning.” There are parallels in Clement of Rome’s Epistle to the Corinthians, Ignatius, Barnabas, and Shepherd of Hermas. These may indicate borrowing, but not necessarily. Polycarp definitely quotes from it, though he does not identify the quoted material as coming from Peter. Irenaeus, however, does quote from it, and regards it as a genuine work of Peter. From the last third of the second century on, this letter is frequently regarded as Petrine, and is cited by Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Theophilus of Antioch, etc.
B. F. Westcott, “The Canon of the New Testament”,
There is not the least evidence to show that its authoriuy was ever been disputed, but on the other hand it does not seem to have been much read in the ltin churches althoughthat it was not unkown in these churches is shown by its presence in a large number of Old Latin manuscripts.”
Stibbs and Wallis, “1 Peter, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries”
“We may conclude, therefore, that, leaving aside for the moment any possible use of 1st Peter in other New Testament writings, wee find abundant evidence of its influence on the thought and expression of early Christians, much of its wide reception and general recognition as Peter’s and none whatever that it was attributed to anyone else. The judgment of Chase stands: “The only natural interpretation of the fact is from the first it was regarded as the work of that apostle.”
Both Polycarp and Papias quote from the letter and attribute it to Peter. The early church had refused to recognize fraudulent letters from “Peter” but recognized 1 Peter as authentic.
The persecution could have been the general persecution from the synagogues, Rome or Nero for the arson of Rome.
What are the sources to the contrary except a personal bias?