I just like to point out that everyone’s interpretation is ultimately based on tradition because otherwise there is no way to detect errors.
Without error-detection, every Joe Smith and David Koresh is just as likely to be as correct as the Pope or Billy Graham.
Unfortunately, the official authoritative oral interpretive tradition of those chrstians who have one (Catholics, Orthodox, etc.) is radically at variance with the Oral Torah. And those chrstians who reject the Catholic/Orthodox oral tradition automatically put the Oral Torah in the same category, because they can never admit that every single verse of the Bible cannot be crystal clear to all (else how could anyone get "saved?").
In the days following the birth of higher criticism traditionalist chrstians have unfortunately adopted the critical view of the Hebrew Bible in order to "prove" it needs an authentic oral interpreter. This is something Jews have never had to do. I wish this were more noted than it is, but for some reason this seems to be a big deal only to me.
I don't see the point there, except that a Christian document needs a Christian explanation, and to be considered Christian it needs to conform to a tradition of what "Christian" means.
Acts 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
How tuff is that to understand?