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).”
His is a fairly balanced presentation, and I can live with that, even though he obviously favors early date and apostolic authorship.
However, such arguments as, for example, that Peter was a cousin of Jesus, and had a successful trade in a city where Greek was the lingua franca of the trade, are rather weak defense of Petrine authorship.
Just about any merchant in Cozumel (Mexico) speaks some English because of the large number of tourists from North America who visit the place. That doesn't make these merchants proficient English speakers with very polished grammar and excellent vocabulary. Rather they speak to "just get by" (and to get you to buy their merchandise!).
The idea that after Pentecost the Apostles all of a sudden could speak Greek like highly educated philosophers and be thoroughly familiar with the Greek Septuagint rather than the Hebrew Bible is just simply not true, since it Mark who followed Peter and who wrote down what Peter must have told him (since Mark did not know Christ personally).
Mark's language, syntax, grammar, etc. is poor. Could it be because he was writing down what Peter told him? Or because mark was a "simple and unschooled" man (as Acts refer to Peter), or perhaps both were?
The HS certainly did not tell Mark that one does not go from Sidon to Galilee via Tyre, especially because there was no road at that time leading form Tyre (to the north of Sidon) to Galilee (southeast of Sidon). Just as the HS did not tell the OT authors that bats are not 'fowl' (as they are called in the OT).
Being a successful fisherman does not make one educated and highly sophisticated.
The argument that certain Sylvanus, who is suspected to be Silas, a follower of Paul, is feasible, but not probable, given that Paul makes no mention of Peter, as Paul's mission to the Gentiles was essentially different from that of Peter (to the Jews).
Neither did the time favor such a conflation, as it did at tne end of the century. And neither did the historical events, while Peter and Paul were still alive, in Asia Minor (present day Turkey) necessitate a Petrine Epistle, when this was a domain of Paul's.
Note that the author says "If the tradition of Peter’s martyrdom at Rome under Nero is accepted,..." in other words myth which is not a fact by any stretch, then we can conjecture the Epistle was written in the earlier part of the 1st century.
In other words we really don't know, and the Church has no evidence other than popular tradition as to its veracity of being of apostolic authoriship. So, we can say, if we accept popular tradition...then we can consider it apostolic..." and that is no proof of anything other than to being our choice, and not a fact.
And until something is established by sufficient evidence to be a fact, doubt is justified and prevails. In other words, I can's simply, say I believe there are unicorns on Jupiter; I actually have to show sufficient evidence supporting my claim in order to claim it as fact.
And I posit that such proof lacks not only in the case of 1 Peter, but in the entire Bible.