As I devote increasing time and energy to re-tackling my commentary on the Epistle of James, I encounter a paradox. On one hand, I work best with fewest distractions; turn me loose with my Greek text and a lexicon, and I’ll happily translate and analyze at a high pitch of intensity.
Yet, as I delve more deeply into the Greek text, and as I mull over subtle exegetical problems, I feel an increasing need to look into the scholarly literature, to check for particular reference material online, to compare various commentaries to see whether some other interpreter has addressed the particular features of the text that intrigue me. And of course, the environment that makes all those reference materials available, also makes available a whole array of potential distractions.
3 comments / Add your comment below
Hi there AKMA, so you’re writing a commentary on James? For whom (which series if any)? Just curious. I’ve been blogging on James. As has Sean du Toit over at Primal Subversion.
I’m preparing the commentary for the Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testament. Thanks for the heads-up; I’ll be sure to consult you and Sean as the pages pass.
Great! The Baylor handbooks that have been released thus far have been excellent!