The Literalistic interpretation has been with us since there has been a Bible and always with the same results, that being the end product amounts to false doctrine. Only one example ought to suffice to debunk this mythology.
  3A voice is calling,
         "Clear the way for the LORD in the wilderness;
         Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God.
    4"Let every valley be lifted up,
         And every mountain and hill be made low;
         And let the rough ground become a plain,
         And the rugged terrain a broad valley;
    5Then the glory of the LORD will be revealed,
         And all flesh will see it together;
         For the mouth of the LORD has spoken."  (Isaiah 40: 3ff)
We know the above text as the prophecy concerning the coming of John the Baptist since we are told in Matthew 3:3 that is what it meant. Now here is the point; if all Scripture is to be read literally, then someone had to buy John the Baptist a new bulldozer, since he was to make a highway, knock all the mountains down and so forth.

According to the Pardes system of exegesis (interpretation), the approach to understand Biblical texts in Judaism is realized through peshat (literal meaning, lit. "plain" or "simple"), remez (deep meaning, lit. "hints"), derash (comparative meaning, from Hebrew darash - "to inquire" or "to seek") and sod (hidden meaning or philosophy, lit. "secret" or "mystery"). The Midrash concentrates somewhat on remez but mostly on derash (Some thinkers divide PaRDeS into pshat, remez, din (law) and sod. In this understanding, midrash aggada deals with remez and midrash halakha deals with din).

Many different exegetical methods are employed to derive deeper meaning from a text. This is not limited to the traditional thirteen textual tools attributed to the Tanna Rabbi Ishmael, which are used in the interpretation of halakha (Jewish law). Presence of apparently superfluous words or letters, chronology of events, parallel narratives or other textual anomalies are often a springboard for interpretation of segments of Biblical text. In many cases, a dialogue is expanded manifold: handfuls of lines in the Biblical narrative may become long philosophical discussions. It is unclear whether the Midrash assumes these dialogues took place in reality or if this refers only to subtext or religious implication.

The "classical" Midrash starts off with a seemingly unrelated sentence from the Biblical books of Psalms, Proverbs or the Prophets. This sentence later turns out to metaphorically reflect the content of the rabbinical interpretation offered.

Some Midrash discussions are highly metaphorical, and many Jewish authors stress that they are not intended to be taken literally. Rather, other midrashic sources may sometimes serve as a key to particularly esoteric discussions. Later authors maintain that this was done to make this material less accessible to the casual reader and prevent its abuse by detractors.

Devarim (Deuteronomy) Rabbah is made up of twenty-seven homilies, corresponding to the divisions of the book according to the ancient triennial reading cycle. Scholars have dated this text as early as 450 CE and as late as 800 CE. Each homily in Devarim Rabbah addresses a halakhic (legal) question and each generally concludes with a statement about redemption.

 For example, the text begins with a reference to the first words of the book of Deuteronomy, "These are the words that Moses spoke," and then launches into a discussion about the permissibility of writing a Torah scroll in a language other than Hebrew. The midrash goes on to consider a range of other subjects, including the importance of rebuke and the value of Torah, and eventually concludes with a promise that, in the messianic era, God will bless the Jewish people directly rather than via religious functionaries.

The problem with Midrashic interpretations are obvious. First and formost, it is not concerned about what was in the mind of God when a given text was written, but is concerned mostly with speculation of humans.

Pesher (pl. pesharim) is a Hebrew word meaning "interpretation" in the sense of "solution". It became known from one group of texts, numbering some hundreds, among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The pesharim give a theory of scriptural interpretation, previously partly known, but now fully defined. The writers of pesharim believe that scripture is written in two levels, the surface for ordinary readers with limited knowledge, the concealed one for specialists with higher knowledge. This is most clearly spelled out in the Habakkuk Pesher (1QpHab), where the author of the text asserts that God has made known to the Teacher of Righteousness, a prominent figure within the history of the Essene community, "all the mysteries of his servants the prophets" (1QpHab VII:4-5). By contrast, the prophets themselves only had a partial interpretation revealed to them.

There are generally considered to be two types of pesharim. Continuous pesharim take a book of the Hebrew Bible, often from the prophets, such as those of Habakkuk, Nahum, or from the Psalms, quote it phrase by phrase, and after each quotation insert an interpretation. The second type, the thematic pesharim use the same method, but here the author (or pesherist) brings together passages from different biblical texts to develop a theme. Examples of the latter include the Florilegium and what has been termed the Melchizedek Midrash. Smaller examples of pesher interpretationsQumran, including the Damascus Document. The method has been likened to later forms of rabbinic biblical interpretation found in the midrash, termed midrash haggadah and midrash halakhah, although there are some significant differences. William Brownlee, the author of a textual study of the Habakkuk Pesher, even proposed a third category of midrash, namely midrash pesher. In general, however, scholars are divided as to whether the pesharim are a distinct genre. can also be found within other texts from

The term pesher itself is used within these texts as a terminus technicus (although this is a gross simplification) to differentiate between the biblical text and its interpretation. Typical examples include: "its interpretation is/concerns" (pishro/pishro al); and "the interpretation of the word/passage is" (pesher ha-davar). It has been suggested that the Semitic root derives from a base meaning of 'loosen' and a similar term appears in the Hebrew Bible in connection with the interpretation of dreams. The Ancient Near Eastern roots are fully discussed by Maurya Horgan in her comprehensive study of the pesharim.

1. In an Allegory, every detail in story has an inner meaning.

(See Galatians 4:24-31), but in a parable, many of the details for illustration may have no meaning at all. It is wise not to over examine a parable.

2. Notice Origen’s interpretation of the Good Samaritan.

“The man who fell among the robbers is Adam. Jerusalem represents heaven, and Jericho, since it was away from Jerusalem, represents the world. The robbers are man’s enemies, the devil and his comrades. The priest stands for the Law, the Levite for the prophets, and the Good Samaritan was Christ Himself. The beast on which the wounded man was placed is the body of Christ which bears the fallen Adam. The inn is the Church while the two pence are the Father and the Son. The Good Samaritan promises that he will come back again, so Christ Jesus will come again at the end of the world. “

C. Rather a silly interpretation but serves to make a point.

1. It is a fatal mistake to allegorize parables or allegorize anything unless we are told it is an allegory. 

2. But, is still prevalent in many modern works.

[The Council of Trent was the 19th Ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic Church. Considered one of the Church's most important[1] councils, it convened in Trent between December 13, 1545, and December 4, 1563 in twenty-five sessions for three periods.]