historical Peter could not write any works, either because he was "unlettered" or because he was a fisherman from Capernaum, a comparatively small and probably monolingual town, in a time and province where there was little literacy. Bauckham addresses the statistical differences in the vocabulary of the two writings, using the data given by U. Holzmeister's 1949 study; 38.6 percent of the words are common to 1 and 2 Peter. 61.4 percent peculiar to 2 Peter, while of the words used in 1 Peter, 28.4 percent are common to 1 and 2 Peter, 71.6 percent are peculiar to 1 Peter. However discouraging these data may be, these figures can be compared with other epistles considered authentic, which is why this is not a final argument, since pure statistical analysis is a weak way of showing literary relationship. Bauckham also notes that "the Greek style of Second Peter is not to the taste of many modern readers, at times pretentiously elaborate, with an effort at pompous phrasing, a somewhat artificial piece of rhetoric, and 'slimy Greek'", contrary to the style of the first epistle, "2 Peter must relate to the 'Asiatic Greek'. His style of Greek rhetoric which was becoming fashionable at the time, and which, with his love of the expressions -of high- flown expressions, of flowery and verbose language, and of elaborate literary effects. The crux of the matter is how these differences are explained. Those who deny the Petrine authorship of the epistle, such as, for example, Kelly, insist that the differences show that First and Second Peter were not written by the same person, others add that 2 Peter was a specific type of pseudepigraphy common and morally accepted at the time, either because it was a testamentary genre or because the works of the disciples could bear the names of their masters without any inconvenience. Those who defend Petrine authorship often appeal to the different amanuenses or secretaries Peter used to write each letter, as first suggested by Jerome. Thomas R. Schreiner puts into perspective when some who doubt the authenticity of the letter consider the arguments defending its authenticity as a impotent resource. People of this mindset, according to Thomas, object to the claim that different secretaries may have been used on the one hand, and then to the claim that the corpus of the two letters is too small to establish stylistic variation, culminating