These interpretations are interpretations – not final pronouncements of truth. They should not be uttered as such nor should they be read and heard as such.
Each text must be interpreted within its unique historical, linguistic, religious, social, and mystical context to be fully understood
An apparently obvious historical or literal interpretation is not inherently primary.
Each text must be interpreted with honesty, clarity, and conciseness.
Views contrary to one’s own must be investigated indifferently.
Honest, clear, and concise criticism is encouraged and should be expected if one dares to publicly espouse one’s own particular interpretation.
The various “meeting-places” of the texts (i.e. where the same word is used in both, where similar concepts & motifs occur, etc.) will create three possible outcomes: synthesis, separation, or contradiction. Synthesis means that the two texts actually speak about the same subject. Separation means that the two texts appear to be similar but are actually speaking of separate topics or different contexts. Contradiction means that the two places in the texts cannot be reconciled by either synthesis or separation – one interpretation contradicts another.
Interpretations of texts are dynamic and must be understood and fostered as a continually changing processes, not as fixed pronouncements of unalterable truths.
There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt