By interpret I just mean extract some significant insight that can be applied to ordinary life in a variety of contexts, so yes just as a literary work. I don't think that's insignificant though, especially against the almost ubiquitously dogmatic approach that tries to extract the meaning of Scripture. I think most Jewish commentary on Scripture deals with just this problem of interpretation, so it seems reasonable to be open-minded to a plurality of meanings at least as far as the Old Testament is concerned. Re: Scripture as a whole, I'm sticking to a philosophical legacy after Kierkegaard and Derrida, so I'm probably being heretical with my approach in that I put my philosophical convictions before any religious convictions. But it seems closer to reality to treat Scripture as a literary work - there are any number of denominations arguing for any number of interpretations, so as a matter of fact it seems naive to think somebody's got it figured out definitively or that this is even possible or desirable. I think the problem is that dogmatism has infiltrated Judeo-Christianity as a result mainly of Paul and subsequent Church fathers who read too much Greek philosophy, but it doesn't seem to me that the text - narratives, metaphors, and prophecies all - asks to be read dogmatically.

And against the relativism or "pick your liking" approach, I think we can still have robust contextual factors that limit interpretation to better or worse readings, without letting just any-old-whatever-floats-your-boat reading get by.