While I can't speak for him, in general, you can reasonably assume that most academic commentary is from an analytical/academic perspective and not one of relig

While I can't speak for him, in general, you can reasonably assume that most academic commentary is from an analytical/academic perspective and not one of religious belief. That's not to say that biblical scholars can't be believers; they absolutely are. But that sort of rigorous analysis can often come into conflict with how most believers and sects view core theology and the material that informs it. For instance, a critical reading of the gospels that make up the bible--looking at the effects of centuries worth of oral tradition, transliteration, translation, and sometimes very heavy edits--isn't exactly the same as accepting one of the more modern editions as the literal "word of God" put to print. I've only had some limited exposure to these traditions (mostly through some medieval philosophy, which obviously intersected heavily with the theology of the time), but it's a fascinating field of study. Not only in terms of how theological texts can change over time and how interpretations of them do the same, but also in how that can contrast with conventionally accepted understandings of what those texts are in the first place.