[blue-duncan]

“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,

“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?

[kosta50]

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

You just don't get it, do you?

Polycarp borrows from it but does credit it to Peter. Papias is descibed by the first Church historian Eusebius as a dimwit.

the commentaries you left out (again):

Paul J. Achtemeier writes: "The letter, therefore, beginning with a carefully crafted exordium whose purpose was to win the attention of the audience, followed by a series of topical discussions and concluding with a peroration, shows elements of judicial and epideictic structures, but seems to reflect most closely the deliberative rhetoric of its Hellenistic age. Whether or nto the author set out deliberatively to craft a letter that included such elements of formal Hellenistic rhetoric is difficult to say, although it would be equally difficult to deny him all acquaintance with formal rhetoric in light of the shape of the letter itself." (A Commentary on First Peter, p. 6)

Eric Eve writes: "Despite 1 Pet 1:1, the author is unlikely to have been the apostle Peter. The cultured Greek of the epistle makes it perhaps the most literary composition in the NT. The apostle Peter probably knew some Greek, but 1 Peter does not look like the product of an unlettered (Acts 4:13) Galilean fisherman. It employs a sophisticated vocabulary incorporating several NT hapax legomena, and its author appears to have some command of the techniques of Hellenistic rhetoric. He is also intimately acquainted with the OT in the LXX, whereas we should have expected the Galilean Peter to have been more familiar with an Aramaic Targum or the Hebrew." (The Oxford Bible Commentary, p. 1263)

W. G. Kümmel writes: "I Pet presupposes the Pauline theology. This is true not only in the general sense that the Jewish-Christian readers, the 'people of God' (2:10), are no longer concerned about the problem of the fulfillment of the Law, but also in the special sense that, as in Paul, the death of Jesus has atoned for the sins of Christians and has accomplished justification (1:18 f; 2:24). Christians are to suffer with Christ (4:13; 5:1), obedience to the civil authorities is demanded (2:14 f), and the Pauline formula en xristw is encountered (3:16; 5:10, 14). The frequently advanced proposal that I Pet is literarily dependent on Rom (and Eph) is improbable because the linguistic contacts can be explained on the basis of a common catechetical tradition. But there can be no doubt that the author of I Pet stands in the line of succession of Pauline theology, and that is scarcely conceivable for Peter, who at the time of Gal 2:11 was able in only a very unsure way to follow the Pauline basic principle of freedom from the Law for Gentile Christians." (Introduction to the New Testament, p. 424)

Paul J. Achtemeier writes: "The type of Greek found in 1 Peter reveals that whether or not the author was born a Greek, he had enjoyed some level of formal education, if not an 'advanced' education in rhetoric or philosophy, at least a 'middle' education that would have included, along with geometry, arithmetic, and music, a reading of such classical authors as Homer. While one may surely presume some facility in Greek even among Palestinian fishermen in the first century who lacked formal education, the kind of Greek found in this epistle was probably beyond such a person, and hence the language was in all likelihood not given its present form by Simon Peter." (A Commentary on First Peter, pp. 4-5)

Daniel Wallace also suggests Peter's use of an anonymous scribe, indeed a companion of Paul, nominating Luke as one candidate. While it may be impossible to disprove such an idea, Eric Eve writes: "One cannot save Petrine authorship by arguing that Peter employed a secretary. If one argues that this secretary was Silvanus, the traveling companion of Paul (e.g. Selwyn 1958) or an anonymous amanuensis of the Roman church (Michaels 1988) the letter then becomes the product not of Peter, but of the secretary, since it is the latter's language that the epistle exhibits (see Beare 1970)." (The Oxford Bible Commentary, p. 1263)

W. G. Kümmel writes: "I Pet contains no evidence at all of familiarity with the earthly Jesus, his life, his teaching, and his death, but makes reference only in a general way to the 'sufferings' of Christ. It is scarcely conceivable that Peter would neither have sought to strengthen his authority by referring to his personal connections with Jesus nor have referred to the example of Jesus in some way." (Introduction to the New Testament, p. 424)

W. G. Kümmel writes: "The situation of persecution of those addressed can be understood only as occurring at the beginning stages of civil persecution (see pp. 418 f). According to the unanimous tradition of the early church, the first persecution of Christians on more than a merely local basis (cf. 5:9) took place under Domitian. But that, of course, takes us beyond the life-span of Peter." (Introduction to the New Testament, p. 424)

and so on....

But, of course, we all believe what we choose to believe. I choose to doubt that which is unsupported by facts. The burden of proof is on those who make claims

There is no proof, no convincing evidence whatsoever, to show that 1Peter was written in superb Greek and sophisticated theology by a Palestinian fisherman with no formal education, whose native language was Aramaic. The historical timing of the persecution is wrong. The date of the epistle is given at 80-110 AD based on the writing style, etc. That pretty much closes the case. When this was written, Peter was long dead. Thus, there is no proof that 1 Peter as well as 2 Peter were written by Peter the Apostle. In favct, all evidence seems to point to the contrary.

Why was it accepted as authoritative? The Church embraced 1 Peter as authoritative early on because it was absolutely vital for the Church's survival to overcome the Petrine-Pauline dispute (which, contrary to some opinions, did not end at the Council in Jerusalem, not do the accounts if this event in Acts and in Paul's' Epistles match).