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):
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).
Well --- the way you have stated it is incorrect. Peter was a Jewish fisherman not Palestinian and his native language was Hebrew not Aramaic. So -- get your facts straight before pontificating.
The historical timing of the persecution is wrong.
Wrong -- Peter is writing to the "sojourners", those Jews and Jewish Christians who had to leave Judea and Jerusalem because of the political unrest, and the Roman armies moving in to quell the violence erupting in the Holy Land at that time [65 AD], that began to spin out of control especially after the murder of James, the brother of Jesus.
These Jewish Christians remembered the words of Jesus about the coming days of vengeance, took heed to those words, and many of them sojourned to northern Asia Minor. These Jewish Christians suffered persecution amongst their own Jewish community not only in Jerusalem and Judea but were also facing it again in the Jewish communities of northern Asia Minor wherein they were now "sojourners".
The date of the epistle is given at 80-110 AD based on the writing style, etc.
Baloney -- what evidence do you have that that wasn't Peter's Greek writing style or that he hadn't learned to read and write in Greek since Pentecost in 30 AD???? You Greeks are absolutely too much. You think that you have to be Greek to understand your own language, and you get upset when others master it better than your own -- especially a Jew named Peter.
That pretty much closes the case.
In your Greek Orthodox dreams ---
When this was written, Peter was long dead.
So then these words by the author of the epistle of I Peter are a big lie:
"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia ..."
And the Church at that time participated in the propagation of this big lie??? That great institution that you believe to be the hope of your salvation participated in the propagation of deceit and falsehood??? Oh -- kosta -- be it not so!!! Better to admit I Peter was written by Peter circa 65 AD than defame that great institution of yours.
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).
So, then the ethic that drove the Church that you trust for your salvation was "Ends justifies the Means" morality -- and not the Truth??? Hmmmm????
You are saying that the leaders of your early Church were willing to compromise, to embrace a lie, tell a fib, propagate falsehood, to disseminate a phony letter for the sake of settling a dispute -- a non-existent one at that??? Is that the great institution that you are trusting in for your eternal salvation???
By your own words you condemn that "church" and those leaders therof that would do such a thing -- not the epistle itself.
The real church always accepted I Peter because copies of it began circulating in 65 AD amongst the Jewish Christian communities of Asia Minor. And true Christians everywhere with the Holy Spirit within them were able to recognize the truth of the words of the author therein. They were capable of recognizing the real scriptures and distinguishing them the phony ones, the real evidence from the phony argument. Take a lesson ---
This is from one of the resources in one article you quote from. It agrees with Paul J. Achtemeier’s “Introduction to the New Testament” pgs. 515-525.
An Introduction to the New Testament by Richard Heard
Richard Heard, M.A., M.B.E., M.C., was a Fellow of
Peterhouse, Cambridge and University lecturer in Divinity at Cambridge (1950). Published by Harper & Brothers, New York, 1950.
Chapter 17: The First Epistle of Peter
Authorship
“The epistle is written in Peter’s name to the elect who are sojourners of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (1:1) from Babylon (5:13) by the hand of Silvanus (5:12). It was quoted by Polycarp and Papias in Asia Minor in the early years of the second century, and its authenticity was undisputed in the early church, although Babylon was generally understood as a cryptic reference to Rome.
The attribution to Peter has been widely challenged in modern times on a number of grounds. We know that at least three writings were in circulation in the second century which were falsely attributed to Peter, the epistle which is included in the New Testament as the Second Epistle of Peter, an Apocalypse of Peter, and a Gospel of Peter. Some features of this epistle too have led critics to regard it as also being a forgery, dating from the end of the first century or the very beginning of the second century.
The epistle is written in fluent and idiomatic Greek, much better than that of Paul, and the Biblical quotations show an intimate knowledge of the Septuagint; this is hard to understand if the epistle is really the work of an Aramaic speaking and illiterate fisherman (Mt. 26:73, Acts 4:13). There are numerous echoes of both the language and ideas of the Pauline epistles, notably of Romans, and some critics have interpreted the general theological tone of the epistle as reflecting a ‘central’ churchmanship more compatible with a post-apostolic stage of development, when Paul’s epistles were more widely known, than with an earlier period. The references to persecution, especially the possibility of suffering ‘as a Christian’ (4:16), are sometimes taken to imply a date in the time of Trajan (A.D. 98-117) whose letters to Pliny (A.D. 112) furnish the first certain evidence that Christianity was regarded as of itself a crime against the state. It has been suggested, in pursuance of these arguments, that the main part of the epistle (1:3-4:11) consists of a sermon to newly-baptised converts; this has been incorporated in a letter written to meet a crisis of persecution by a Christian who introduced Peter’s name in an endeavour to give his words of exhortation an official and apostolic authority.
The weight of this attack on the Petrine authorship cannot be denied, but the ascription can still be defended with some confidence, especially if the Silvanus of the epistle is, as there is no reason to doubt, Silas, the companion of Paul on his second missionary journey. The case for Peter’s authorisation of the epistle, paradoxical as it may seem, is strengthened by the probability that he did not himself have a ready command of the Greek language. It is expressly stated at the close of the epistle that Peter has written ‘by the hand of Silvanus’. If Peter could not himself speak Greek and wished to send a letter to Greek-speaking Gentiles in Asia Minor, he could either have dictated a letter in Aramaic for subsequent translation into Greek or have had a Greek letter composed for him by someone he could trust. There is nothing improbable in his adopting the latter course, and there are two curious pieces of evidence in its favour. Silvanus is called ‘our faithful brother, as I account him’ (5:12), a description which gains special point if he had actually drafted the letter for Peter in a language which Peter only imperfectly understood. We know, too, from Acts that, when the decree of the Council of Jerusalem was sent to Antioch, the apostles and elders wrote ‘by the hand of ’ Judas and Silas, a phrase which suggests that Silas had a part in the drafting of the pastoral letter in which the decree was incorporated (Acts 15:23)
This explanation of the composition of the epistle fully meets the difficulties both of language and of ‘Paulinism’. Silas’ selection as one of the delegates from the Council of Jerusalem to Antioch was probably due in part to the fact that he spoke Greek well and could explain the decrees to the Gentile Christians there (Acts 15: 32), and his intimate connection with Paul on the second missionary journey would account for the affinities of language and thought between this epistle and those of Paul. Nor is it necessary to assume that the ‘fiery trial’ (4:12) and the possibility of suffering ‘as a Christian’ (4:16) imply a persecution essentially different in kind from that which Paul and Silas had undergone in their travels.
The part played by Silvanus in the writing of the epistle helps us also to understand the circumstances in which it was written. The identification of ‘Babylon’ with Rome fits in with the general later tradition of Peter’s presence at Rome, and although many scholars dispute the historical value of this tradition which they hold to be ultimately derived from the misinterpretation of this very verse in I Peter, a Roman origin for the epistle cannot be ruled completely out of court. Yet there is a real difficulty in accepting the identification. Quite apart from the absence of any intelligible reason for Peter using such a cryptic term for Rome in an epistle in which he bids his readers honour the Emperor (2:17), no convincing evidence has so far been adduced for Rome being called Babylon before the Jewish War of A.D. 70 had fanned the flames of Jewish hatred.
There is nothing inherently improbable, on the other hand, in Peter having worked in Babylon and its neighbourhood, where we know from Josephus (Ant. 15:2, 3) there were large communities of Jews. The absence of any tradition connecting Peter with Babylon is explicable by the great break between the Christian communities of East and West that followed upon the disasters of A.D. 70 and the subsequent misfortunes of Christianity in Palestine and elsewhere. We know next to nothing of the early spread of Christianity in directions other than that North-West mission whose progress Luke has so faithfully recorded.
We know next to nothing of the coming of Christianity to the provinces of Asia Minor named in the epistle other than Galatia and Asia, but it is not rash to see in the evangelisation of Northern Asia Minor the results of the same impetus that led Paul through Southern Asia Minor. Whether Silas himself had played a part in this further spread of the Gospel, or whether his role is to be envisaged as that of liaison between the apostles and the actual missionaries, we can never know. He is last mentioned in Acts as being summoned by Paul to come to him at Athens (Acts 17:15), and Paul mentions him with Timothy as a joint author of his epistles to the Thessalonians in A.D. 49, probably at Corinth (cf. II Cor. 1:19). It seems reasonable to assume that he continued to be interested in, possibly to share in, missionary journeys to parts of Asia Minor in the years that followed, and that the first epistle of Peter is a message of instruction and encouragement from the apostle through Silvanus to some of the new and predominantly Gentile (cf. 4:3-4) churches which had been e founded. The encyclical nature of the epistle and the lack of greetings to individuals suggest that Peter had not himself visited these areas, and that the epistle may in fact have been a kind of official recognition of the churches in a new mission-field, possibly to be carried round by Silvanus on a tour of inspection and confirmation.
The date of the epistle can only be conjectured. If the tradition of Peter’s martyrdom at Rome under Nero is accepted, it cannot be later than the early sixties. A dozen years may sound a short time for churches to have sprung up over so wide an area, but the rapidity with which Paul established churches on his missionary journeys indicates that such a swift expansion elsewhere was not impossible.”
The slander that Peter, the cousin of Jesus, was an illiterate, ignorant Galilean fisherman is disproved by the Gospels where he is presented as a wealthy businessman in the fishing business with partners, hired help, more than one fishing boat and having a business that was established enough to succeed during the two years he was absent from it. It was also located in a major trading city along the Roman Way where he had to know Greek in order to successfully trade.
By the way, to cite Kummell or Perrin as disinterested scholars in interpreting anything having to do with the authenticity of scripture is rediculous. They are both proponents of a very low view of scripture.
As to Eusebius’ bias take on Papias, this from your own cited web site,
“Eusebius’ skepticism was no doubt prompted by his distaste - perhaps a recently acquired distaste (Grant 1974) - for Papias’ chiliasm and his feeling that such a theology qualified Papias for the distinction of being “a man of exceedingly small intelligence” (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.13). Nevertheless Eusebius’ analysis of the preface is probably correct; and his further point that Papias’ chiliasm put him to the same camp as the Revelation of John is surely relevant. It is notable that Eusebius, in spite of his desire to discredit Papias, still places him as early as the reign of Trajan (A.D. 98-117); and although later dates (e.g., A.D. 130-140) have often been suggested by modern scholars, Bartlet’s date for Papias’ literary activity of about A.D. 100 has recently gained support (Schoedel 1967: 91-92; Kortner 1983: 89-94, 167-72, 225-26).”