# Pitfall pack: commentary

*Type-specific traps for sacred-text commentary drafting. Applies across traditions (biblical, Quranic, Talmudic, Vedic, Buddhist, etc.). Loaded after WRITING-RULES.md. STYLE-GUIDE.md and DOCTRINES.md still win where they conflict; this pack is general craft, not doctrine.*

## Register drift

Commentary moves between registers: exegetical (analytical), pastoral (applied), homiletic (proclamational), devotional (responsive). Drift happens when the writer slides from one to another mid-paragraph without signaling.

- Exegetical analysis suddenly turning into pastoral exhortation in the same sentence.
- Devotional warmth bleeding into what should be a tight philological note.
- "We" that sometimes means the scholarly reader and sometimes means the worshiping community. Hold one referent at a time.
- Quoting the source text in one register (formal, traditional rendering) and paraphrasing it later in another (colloquial). Match register or signal the shift.

## Anachronism

- Modern psychological vocabulary applied to ancient figures ("Moses processed his trauma", "Arjuna struggled with imposter syndrome"). Avoid unless the move is deliberate and signposted.
- Modern political categories projected backward ("the prophet's progressive stance"). Use period-appropriate framing.
- Contemporary metaphors that erase historical context ("the disciples were the original startup team"). Cute, almost always wrong.
- Translating concepts that have no cognate ("dharma" as "duty", "chesed" as "kindness") without flagging the loss.

## Doctrinal precision

- Asserting interpretations as the only reading when interpretive traditions disagree. Acknowledge the range or stay narrow.
- Smuggling in doctrinal claims without citation to authoritative sources (church fathers, hadith, mishnah, classical commentaries).
- Conflating the writer's tradition's reading with universal "what the text means".
- Using denominational shorthand without defining it for non-specialist readers.

## Source-handling pitfalls

- Quoting a passage in a translation without naming the translation.
- Treating one manuscript tradition as if it were uncontested. Note variant readings where they bear on the argument.
- Citing a secondary source when a primary source exists.
- Over-reliance on a single classical commentator without acknowledging others.
- Ignoring transmission history when it bears on the passage's authority or meaning.

## Sentimentality and triumphalism

- Closing every section with an inspirational lift.
- Reading every passage as already pointing to the writer's preferred theological conclusion.
- Hagiographic treatment of figures the text itself depicts complexly.
- Hostile straw-man treatment of other traditions or interpretations.

## Stock phrases

- "What this passage really tells us is..."
- "In our modern world..."
- "Now more than ever..."
- "The deeper meaning here..."
- "What the original audience would have understood..." (without evidence)

## Cross-reference discipline

- Daisy-chains of cross-references that obscure the local meaning of the passage.
- Forcing typological or allegorical readings where the text does not warrant them.
- Citing parallel passages without showing how the parallel illuminates the current verse.

## Closing pitfalls

- Application section that ignores the exegetical work above it.
- "Let us therefore..." sermon move when the genre is commentary, not sermon.
- A closing prayer or doxology in what is meant to be a critical edition.
- Promising to address the difficulty in a future volume that may never come.