The response that people in business in Galilee, especially on a trade route such as that around Capernaum, learned Greek is irrelevant. They may have picked up enough Greek for commerce but scarcely the ability to write literary Greek.

However, since I Pet 5:12 may indicate that Silvanus (Silas) was an amanuensis (secretary), if he were given considerable freedom and knew Greek well, he could have phrased Peter's thoughts.

But the question is, What is the meaning of δια Σιλουανου ... σγραφα [dia Silovanou sgrapha - "written/delivered by Silvanus"]? Is Silvanus the carrier or the scribe (and therefore by extension the writer) of the letter? It would be safe to say that he is in any case envisaged as delivering the letter and is commended to the churches for this purpose. But did he also write it at Peter's dictation or behest?

On the analogy of the opening verses of I and II Thessalonians, one might expect Silvanus to have shared in the address if he was part-author, or to have added his own greeting, like Tertius in Rom. 16.22, if he was the amanuensis, though obviously these parallels cannot be pressed. The bearer of Romans is evidently Phoebe, who is similarly commended to the congregation (16.1f.), and it is significant that the subscription added to later manuscripts describes the epistle as σγραφη απο Κορινθου δια Φοιβης [sgraphe apo Korinthou dia Phoibes - "written/delivered to Corinth by Phoebe"]. It was her activity, not that of Tertius, that the scribes thought was properly described by the preposition δια [dia - "by"]. This is one of a number of parallels given by Chase in a careful note on the subject which seems to have been conspicuously ignored (or misinterpreted) by those who have not agreed with its conclusion. The only other example in the New Testament (also as it happens associated with Silvanus) is in Acts 15.23 where γραφαντες δια χειρος αυτον [graphantes dia cheiros auton - written/delivered by their own hand] must in the context (cf.15.22, 27) refer to the sending of the apostolic letter, via Judas Barsabbas and Silas, and mean, as the neb rightly renders it, 'gave them the letter to deliver'. The same applies to the Epistle of Polycarp 14, 'I write these things to you by (per) Grescens, whom I commended to you recently and now commend to you', and to the only unambiguous instance in the letters of lgnatius: 'I write these things to you from Smyrna by the hand of (δια) the Ephesians who are worthy of all felicitation' (Rom. 10.1). On the other side only two parallels, as far as I know, have been cited. One is the letter from Dionysius of Corinth to the Romans, where he describes I Clement as having been written from the Roman church δια Κλεμεντος [dia Klementos - by Clement]. But this means not that Clement was the amanuensis of some other author, but the representative of his church. Similarly in the Martyrdom of Polycarp 20 the church in Smyrna writes to the church in Philomelium and elsewhere 'through our brother Marcianus', and he is distinguished from Euarestus who 'wrote the letter' and, like Tertius in this capacity, sends his own greeting. Marcianus again is evidently the spokesman of the church and thus corresponds to Peter rather than Silvanus: he is no one's secretary. So Kummel seems to be right in saying that 'no one has yet proved that γραφω δια τινος [grapho dia tinos - written/carried by someone] can mean to authorize someone else to compose a piece of writing'.

Until this can be shown, then to rely upon Silvanus as the real composer of the Greek is extremely hazardous. It could be so. Yet Peter as the author (as the very personal address of 5.1ff. would suggest) must really be prepared to stand on his own feet. The doubts and difficulties will remain, and it seems impossible that they could ever be finally resolved either way. In the last resort I can only say that I find nothing decisive to outweigh the many other considerations to suggest that, whoever actually penned it, the epistle comes from Peter's lifetime and that he is in the fullest sense 'behind' it.

The objection is pretty important. Robinson's examples seem to imply that Silvanus, or Silas, was either the letter-carrier or its chief author. Since this second option is obviously denied, it seems he must've been the one that delivered the letter to Asia Minor from Rome, just as Phoebe delivered Paul's letter to the Romans from Corinth.

But already we're noticing that two extremes exist around this troublesome little word, δια: one described by it is either the main author, or a carrier who had absolutely nothing to do with it except to deliver it. Is it really impossible for it to cover some ground in between?

Even if we deny this last possibility, we can point out that the inclusions of Silvanus and Timothy in the greetings in 1-2 Thessalonians (v.1:1) compared with the one by Tertius in Rom. 16:22 shows that amanuenses gave differing and varying levels and types of greetings. Sometimes the amanuensis isn't mentioned at all, such as in Galatians (Paul used one as Gal. 6:11 tells us). Robinson himself points out these parallels can't be pushed exactly for these reasons. The parallels between 1 Pet. 5:12-13 and 1 Cor. 16:19-20 can suggest that neither Silvanus nor Mark were indeed of any help in composing the epistle. But since Sosthenes was the amanuensis for 1 Corinthians (v.1:1) and Galatians' silent amanuensis show that if not Silvanus or Mark, then someone else could've easily helped Peter.

Anyway, the Greek of the document is "a liturgy-homily, shorn of its rubrics...[with] changing tenses and broken sequences all retained...hastily dressed up as a letter and sent off" so it doesn't exactly betray the eloquence of a Demosthenes or a Lysias. Silvanus' presence and consequent influence can also explain the many Pauline connections.

These last observations can make one wonder why Peter would send such a disorganized document to people who knew or understood little of his situation. But if 2 Peter and Peter's somewhat disorganized character are any judge (denial of Jesus; wavering opinion with Judaizers in Galatians), it makes much more sense for the apostle to compose an encyclical similar to Ephesians, with some reflections of his own situation that can be projected into a model for potential future challenges (and news plus information was going to come from Silvanus anyway - 5:12; cf. Eph. 6:21), rather than for a forger who had plenty of time but couldn't come up with a unified, eloquent purpose and still managed to fool the early Christian communities at large, within a generation of Peter's lifetime (the letter is attested by the early 2nd century), when many who knew Peter would've still been alive. At the very least, it's not less likely for Peter to have written it this way. This hint of personalia without elaboration also points to authenticity. And a writer can muse on many subjects as they come to him while composing, as we can see in Romans for example; Peter simply doesn't have the same training as Paul for us to judge him by the latter's developed literature and theologies.

The connection between Peter and Silvanus makes one think that if the epistle is forged, it was by a Paulinist. Yet the letter betrays no sign of development or full-blown agreement with Paul in any literary sense the way a later Christian would have done, but a more nuanced, living contemporary. This is how the author treats his audience anyway - as a brother, and not as a mega apostle in their presence.

References to a "fiery ordeal" (4:12) and the experience of suffering required of the brotherhood throughout the world (5:9) suggest a universal imperial persecution, and there was none in Peter's lifetime. However, since there was no universal persecution of Christians until the 2d century, this interpretation of the suffering would require a dating too late to be plausible. The passage may mean no more than harassment and the common Christian demand to take up the cross.

2. Church organization in 5:1 has established presbyters appointed and paid, which would seem to fit 70-100 better than 50-70. Although Raymond Brown calls attention to this seemingly developed church structure, he also points out that the references to varied charisms in 4:10-11 suggest a transitional period (i.e. before 70). We see appointment and salary of deacons in Paul (1 Cor. 9:1-18), so how much more presbyters.

3. The author calls himself Peter instead of something like Simon Peter/Simon/Cephas. The idea is that by the second century, "Peter" as the Apostle's name had full-fledged authority behind it, and that's what forgers preferred to use (e.g. Apocalypse of Peter). But we see the address "Simon Peter" in the spurious Gospel of Peter (line 60), so the value of this objection is a little uncertain. Paul prefers "Cephas" in his letters, but he uses "Peter" twice (Galatians 2:7-8; "Simon" is unused). He also refers to Peter as "apostle to the Jews," so Peter was probably known by that name commonly in the Greek-speaking world vs "Cephas" in Judea for Paul to prefer it, speaking Aramaic with the Apostles (Paul doesn't have to specify that Peter=Cephas the way Acts does - "Simon who is called Peter"). Only within a generation (by 1 Clement - 96 AD) everyone knew of "Peter and Paul", not "Cephas/Simon and Paul", so maybe Greek Christians preferred this name. Occasionally the Grecized form of a Hebrew name becomes widespread ("Silas" from "Seila/Saul"), and perhaps this is why we know of Peter much better than Simon or Cephas.

Thomas, on the other hand, whose Greek name is given as Didymus (John 11:16, 20:24, 21:2) remained Thomas, so clearly Peter was well-known to the Greek Christians, and probably travelled there, also suggested by the "party of Cephas" (1 Cor. 1:12). If Peter introduced himself as "Cephas" to the Corinthians, then this objection could be weightier. But judging from the Gospels, starting with Mark (written c.70 AD), he was already widely known as Peter, so the Apostle writing in the 60's would've probably used that name. The name "Simon" is reintroduced later by Acts, meaning it was already obscure by 90 AD. This means the Apostle Peter himself must've used the name "Peter" over Cephas (or the by then unused birthname Simon). Galatians 2:7-8 reflects this where he's connected with his official function, ironically to the Jews - but we see many Hellenists in the church's early days (Acts 6:1). So if Peter wrote 1 Peter he could've been just as likely to use this name as a forger. He would've been writing to a mainly Greek-speaking audience, many of whom wouldn't have known him or who "Simon/Cephas" was.

11. Like in Paul's letters, the audience seems to be primarily Gentile, yet not ignorant of Jewish history. The absence of the Holy Spirit and other such concepts is in no way indicative of any kind of forgery or lateness, as 1 Thessalonians also doesn't talk about the law or the Spirit (also Colossians). Perhaps, arguably 1 Peter is in some ways more primitive because of this, making it less likely to be inauthentic. Though writing from Rome (Babylon; urbi et orbi) with Mark's presence, this doesn't need to be the later Christian legend of Peter's dictation of his Gospel to Mark at the empire's capital (so Marxsen): the Apostle Peter certainly travelled through the regions addressed in 1 Peter, for him to have a "Cephas party" in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:12). And the association of Peter with Mark is not a late and legendary but early (Acts 12:12). Silas and Mark were both big helpers for the apostles in those days (Acts 15:39-40). If anything, to mention both Sylvanus and Mark in Peter's company would be unthinkable by a later forgerer, and shows he was writing before Acts, which depicts Paul's distrust of Mark and chooses Silas (Greek=Sylvanus), became widespread (before 100?).

Arguments for Authenticity

1. It has long been noted that the justice 1 Peter presupposes from the Roman state cannot in any way post-date Nero's persecutions. 2:13 asks for respect and obedience to all authorities: from the emperor to the governors who in 2:14-15 are to punish the Christian's enemies through the Christian's good behavior! 4:12-19 hardly presupposes the death of multitudes, 4:1-4 talks about local harassment, and see 3:13: "Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good?"! 3:14-17 seems to be a judgment not bent on killing the Christian, but punishing/judging. Although the analogous example given is the suffering of Christ (2:23) which did result in death, advice like 1 Peter 2:1-3, 13-25 (v.20), 3:8-22 hardly presupposes mass-persecutions as opposed to the occasional death of a Christian, (compare Revelation!) of the kind that occurred in Rome under Nero, and could such advice have been given after Nero? This could not have been written during a peace period between or after Nero/Domitian/Trajan which had relatively little persecution, with the occasional imprisonment for the name (seeing that the epistle seems to give advice despite knowing one might suffer and die for only doing what is good), because it seems to presuppose no possibility of a grand miscarriage of justice like the mass-persecutions in 64.

2. 1 Peter 4:7 clearly expects an imminent parousia, or has phrased it in such a way so as to pre-date the problem of the delayed parousia after 70. This is practically unthinkable for a writing as late as 80-120.