It is always possible to argue against an interpretation, to confront interpretations, to arbitrate between them and to seek for an agreement, even if this agreement remains beyond our reach.
First, it is not unimportant that the legislative texts of the Old Testament are placed in the mouth of Moses and within the narrative framework of the sojourn at Sinai.
There is no shorter path for joining a neutral existential anthropology, according to philosophy, with the existential decision before God, according to the Bible.
So long as the New Testament served to decipher the Old, it was taken as an absolute norm.
This is perhaps the most profound meaning of the book of Job, the best example of wisdom.
For my own part, I abandon the ethics of duty to the Hegelian critique with no regrets; it would appear to me, indeed, to have been correctly characterized by Hegel as an abstract thought, as a thought of understanding.
The logic of validation allows us to move between the two limits of dogmatism and skepticism.
If it is true that there is always more than one way of construing a text, it is not true that all interpretations are equal.
But myth is something else than an explanation of the world, of history, and of destiny.
Testimony gives something to be interpreted.