based on the work of one respected writer, and maybe that writer got it wrong. (For example, I found that several commentaries on 1 Peter were written with too much dependence on E. G. Selwyn without realizing that he had made a number of mistakes both in information and in judgment.) Far better is the approach that looks for the reasons a commentator gives for his interpretation. Then it is up to us, as interpreters, to decide whether those reasons are persuasive. Perhaps we see things in the text