This answer states:
In general: philosophy informs one's reading of a text, not the other way around.
This statement in itself is an answer to one of the biggest issues of hermeneutics: the way the "philosophy ⇆ text" feedback system works—an issue with far to great a scope for a single BH.SE question.
Is it defensible to claim in general that our existing beliefs are more a powerful shaping force in interpretation than the contents of the text? This is doubtless true at times. But is it defensible to claim this in general rather than of specific interpretations?