The Easter service that is the climax of "The Sound and the Fury" is a study in the workings of fiction and Scripture as reciprocal interpretation.
Where the established teaching is based, in intention, on scripture, then an interpretation of scripture that conflicts with it naturally calls for further scrutiny, but such conflict does not rule out the interpretation beforehand; if the conflict is confirmed, it is the established teaching that requires revision.
As has been argued elsewhere, this is a very clumsy reading of what Genesis actually says; but set alongside the Levitical code and (as Ellen Davis argues) many other aspects of the theology of Jewish Scripture, the malign interpretation that has latterly been taken for granted by critics of Judaism and Christianity appears profoundly mistaken.
James C. Dobson, one of the most prominent evangelical leaders on the right, accused Mr. Obama last week of employing a deviant reading of Scripture and a "fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution" to justify his theology and world view.
Parallelism, the interpretation of scripture by means of scripture, is a corollary of the belief in the unity of scripture.
Over the course of three years the report has been treated like a holy scripture with opposing interpretations.
In addition to the tradition of the Holy Scriptures and its interpretation, traditions centring on holy places also developed.
You can yoke these policy positions together via a loosey-goosey interpretation of "scripture" (the Bible actually has very little to say about any of them), but today sees a generation of young conservatives who don't necessarily see them as related.
At one extreme, we find ultra-traditional versions of Christianity that emphasize literal interpretation of Scripture, and that often interpret theological doctrines in terms of ancient Greek philosophical categories (e.g., God as eternal, unchangeable, etc).
