I was thinking of starting another thread on this but maybe I can squeeze it in here (and feel free to ignore it if it seems off track).
I think 1 Peter is genuine. I think it is in keeping with the Peter/Cephas of Galatians 2 (if they are the same person), a Jewish Christian influenced to some extent by Paul. For example, while I take 1 Peter as being addressed to Jewish Christians (as some argue), and it seems similar in some respects to the Dead Sea Scrolls (namely the ideas of suffering and "being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices"), on the other hand other things about it do seem "Pauline" to me (and to others). For example, it was ostensibly written with the help of Silvanus, who is mentioned by Paul in 1 Cor. 1:19, 1 Thes. 1:1 and (since I'm presently considering the idea that 2 Thes. is genuine) 2 Thes. 1:1 (and which some say is why 1 Peter was written in good Greek).
1 Peter 5:12:
Through Silvanus, whom I regard as a faithful brother, I have written this short letter to encourage you and to testify that this is to be the true grace of God in which you are to stand firm!
And 1 Peter 2:13-17 reminds me of Paul's position in Rom. 13.
Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.
Rom. 13:1-5:
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
At the same time, I'm getting more impressed with Papias as time goes on. What he says about there being an original Hebrew Matthew that was translated into Greek holds water to me, and since he is also the first to mention the gospel of Mark by name I'm taking another look at what he says about it.
First, I think it's interesting that 1 Peter is addressed to "Jews from Asia" (to use Acts' terminology), which is where Papias was from (not to imply that I think he was Jewish). Papias also used Revelation (which I think is Jewish Christian too and is addressed to "the seven churches in the province of Asia"), so, at least geographically speaking, Papias was in a position to know something about Peter. And he is said to have known 1 Peter and something from the Jewish Christian Gospel of the Hebrews in EH 3.39.16:
And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
And this is what he says about Mark in EH 3.39.15:
This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely. These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.
And 1 Peter 5:13 mentions someone named Mark (and some argue that this is the gospel writer):
She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark.
And the word "son" is defined as, "properly, a son (by birth
or adoption); (figuratively) anyone sharing the same nature as their Father. For the believer, becoming a son of God begins with being reborn (adopted) by the heavenly Father – through Christ (the work of the eternal Son). In the NT, 5207 /hyiós ("son") equally refers to female believers (Gal 3:28)."
http://biblehub.com/greek/5207.htm
So it doesn't necessarily mean that this Mark was literally Peter's son.
And while the gospel of Mark does seem "Pauline" to me in some respects, it is knowledgeable about Judaism (e.g., Mk. 7:3-4: "The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles"), which is something I've previously ascribed to Mark knowing Paul or people who knew Paul, but now, in light of Papias, maybe he learned about it from Peter. And that could place Mark in the first century CE.
After having reservations about this for twenty years, I'm now willing to consider that perhaps there could be something to Papias' account after all. In any event, Papias is someone from the second century CE who mentions Mark, and since he is the first person to do so I think his account is worth taking another look at.