From a religious perspective, I'd also like to suggest that multiple modes (I almost want to say moods) of interpretation can operate simultaneously. Almost like theoretical lenses through which a text is approached, where the choice of lens doesn't preclude the validity of another. For example, here are two common general approaches to interpretation that I think are important in the Christian tradition. (I think I could talk about "symbolic" interpretation and its importance as well but it's a lot more abstract so I'm ignoring it)
1) The "historical" mode
This is the closest to what we normally mean by literal, I think. It's the approach that first understands the text as a sacred history which is intended to convey historically true information about things that have actually happened. The caveat is that history as an academic genre didn't really exist in the ancient world, and so there are of course no attempts at purely objective histories, per se. But perhaps something like the book of Kings can be understood fairly simply as a text of this genre. In any case, when Paul writes to the Corinthians that if Christ has not been raised then their faith is in vain he certainly is approaching his religion in this sort of historical mood, and plenty of ancient commentaries on biblical texts do so as well. And clearly some authors of biblical texts intend to suggest that the stories they are telling are not just true in some symbolic sense but as sacred histories.
It's important to differentiate between the historical mode as its employed by a reader in the present and the aims of an author, however. The historical mode of interpretation tends to assume that the historical accuracy is the most important point of the text. If the text is not historically accurate, than it loses a lot of value from this perspective. That is not the case from the point of view of other modes necessarily. From a modern perspective, I'd also attach to this mode all the anthropological considerations about cultural contexts, the aims of authors, and etc. From that perspective, it's useful to ground any more imaginative readings in some understanding of those factors. Here, it's not so much a question of reading the text as a sacred history but just of reading the text as an historical document.
2) The pedagogical mode
A second approach is one in which the primary motivation in reading is spiritual edification, and that's what I mean by pedagogical. In the 4th century, in the preface to a collection of homilies that give very allegorical readings to the Song of Songs, Gregory of Nyssa (a church father fundamental in the formulation of the dogma of the Trinity) defends his practice of reading in this way, over against "plain" or "historical" readings:
Gregory of Nyssa said:
It seems right to some church leaders, however, to stand by the letter of the Holy Scriptures in all circumstances, and they do not agree that Scripture says anything for our profit by way of enigmas and below-the-surface meanings. For this reason I judge it necessary first of all to defend my practice against those who thus charge us.
In our earnest search for what is profitable in the inspired Scripture (c.f. 2 Tim 3:16) there is nothing to be found that is unsuitable. Therefore, if there is profit even in the text taken for just what it says, we have what is sought right before us. On the other hand, if something is stated in a concealed manner by way of enigmas and below-the-surface meanings, and so is void of profit in the plain sense, such passages we turn over in our minds, just as the Word teaches us in Proverbs, so that we may understand what is said either as a parable or as a dark saying or as a word of the wise or as an enigma.
I think part of what is interesting about his defense is that he seems to arrive at it "by necessity," so to speak. He suggests creative reinterpretation when the plain sense of a passage seems problematic. I think this happens all the time in practice, but it's rarely stated as a desirable hermeneutical principle. But I think it's eminently practical. In a sense, the acceptability of this mode depends first on rejecting certain ideas about infallibility, inerrancy, and authority. That wasn't a problem for Gregory because those ideas didn't really exist in his time. I would argue that the challenge to (especially protestant) fundamentalism is in the way the sola scriptura principles make better interpretations impossible. I like to point out that this mode of interpretation is properly ancient and respectable in Christianity just because it might give more Christians permission to use it.
The 7th century saint Maximus Confessor provides another example:
Maximus Confessor said:
If the Word of God was crucified for us out of weakness and was raised up by the power of God, it is evident that he is always doing and suffering this for us in a spiritual way; because he became all things to all people in order to save all. Well, then, did the holy Apostle while among the weak Corinthians determine that he would know nothing except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. But to the Ephesians who were perfect he writes that God “raised us up with Christ Jesus and seated us with him in the heavens.” He speaks of the reality of the Word of God in a manner which corresponds to each one’s strength. Thus he is crucified for those who are still beginners in the practice of virtue…but he rises and ascends into heaven for those who have completely put off the old self… (Chapters on Knowledge 2.27)
Maximus has the same kind of pedagogical aim. What is important is edification. Maximus however finds a kind of biblical justification for the hermeneutical principle, finding that Paul suggests a similar way of approaching spiritual life. In essence, this mode exchanges the presupposition that the texts must represent an inerrant and immutable collection of truths in order to be valuable with the belief that the texts have a spiritual life which can be profitable (as in 1 Tim) to the reader in ways that are very specific to the needs of that reader.
