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 ---
Do you always make things up like this? Even a cursory check of facts would show you that you need your own medicine. The area where Peter lived is Plestine; it has nothing to do with being Jewish. The Jews of the 1st century AD spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew.
More confabulation...the very first verse of 1 Peter says "to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia..." Do you even have a clue where those areas are?
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
You just can't stop writing your own history. That's fraud. The Jews lived all over, in Egypt and in Greece and in Asia Minor (modern Turkey). IN FACT (an alien word for you, obviously), they lives do LONG outside of Israel that their generations spoke Greek!
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????
It's one thing to learn how to speak market Greek and another to write sophisticated Greek mixed with Greek philosophy and developed theology. Remember, even Acts say he was unschooled.
You are presuming again. I don't get upset if someone masters Greek better than my own language. My native tongue is not Greek. You'd have to prove that he did.
So then these words by the author of the epistle of I Peter are a big lie
I don't know. Maybe his name was really Peter.
And the Church at that time participated in the propagation of this big lie
The Church believed what theChurch believed. And the Church has not been exactly free from machinations. Evene the first Church historian, Eusebius (4th century), admits that they retain that which is suitable for the Church and reject that which isn't.
Better to admit I Peter was written by Peter circa 65 AD than defame that great institution of yours
Is this like hiding the fact that some priests are not exactly priestly for fear of defaming the "instituton." Now we are going to subject the truth to a sanitized version of the truth out of fear? How honest and earnest is that?
I never condmened the Church. I am sure the majority of churches earnestly believed that 1 Peter was written by Peter and that it was Godsent. Somone in the Church saw to it that it is read and accepted for the better of the Church.
The same was true of the Epistle of Barnabas for about 3 centuries and then the epistle was dropped. Why? All of a sudden it was no longer "inspired?" Or because it didn;t sevre the original purpose? or because somone made a mistake for 300 years in treating it as scripture?
The real church always accepted I Peter because copies of it began circulating in 65 AD amongst the Jewish Christian communities of Asia Minor
That's news! But you will just have to provide some documentation verifying this claim. I will be eagerly waiting for you to come up with one.