Thats the best I found with fishermen <within 10 words> educated
It is not unreasonable to believe that 2 Peter is pseudepigraphical, although Bauckham assumes the pseudepigraphical character of 2 Peter as being incontrovertible, which in our mind goes beyond the evidence. While it is not unreasonable to believe that 2 Peter is pseudepigraphical, one comes to this conclusion by making assumptions about Simon Peter that, while they are reasonable, are not the only reasonable assumptions that one could make.49 The fact is that we do not know enough of Simon Peter’s history to know whether or not he could have written 2 Peter (and, if so, whether he could also have written 1 Peter). Given that we cannot be fully convinced one way or the other, one wonders how the first–century reader (or second century, if one dates 2 Peter that late) could be clear that it was pseudepigraphical, that it was a testament, and that therefore it did not intend to be anything other than
Peter H. Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, PNTC; Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 149.
49. These assumptions are that as a fisherman he would not have been educated, or, if educated, that his Greek education would not have been sufficient to write 2 Peter, that 2 Peter shows too much familiarity with Greco-Roman philosophy for a Galilean fisherman, and so on.
Peter H. Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, PNTC; Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 158.