Dr. Daniel Wallace, who disagrees with the consensus, points out that many New Testament scholars "[adopt] this perspective without much discussion". In other words, he says that scholars agree that the Petrine epistles were written by someone else based on the fact that there is already a consensus, not on the merits of the arguments supporting the viewpoint.
Dr. Donald Carson et al. writes that scholars are left with the choice of accepting that the works attributed to Peter were written by him, or that they are forgeries and lack canonicity. It is difficult to accept any viewpoint on the authorship given that the early scholars we draw from (Origen, Tertullian, etc.) were themselves all Christians with their own biases and agendas, and even today the vast majority of scholars have a bias based on their own beliefs.
One of the problems I came across was that no one seems to establish the difference between the supposed "real" Peter and the writer of the letters. It seems to me that we haven't established who Peter really was to be able to say anything about what he may have written.
The view that 1 Peter and 2 Peter were written by different people is a separate issue. I'm only addressing the potentially false dichotomy presented. --Jaban 04:18, 5 July 2010 (CDT)