logical community at the time of production of the text. Since the sociological analysis would need totake seriously the theological context of the text, a sociological interpretation could never simply supplant atheological interpretation. Sociological interpretations can help, but above all we need theological interpretationsto properly understand revealed texts.Here's how Gracia sums up his conclusions:"Revealed texts by themselves offer no guidance as to how they are to be interpreted. Indeed, the very notionsof revealed text and revelation are theological, and so are the notions of the revealing divinities, instrumentalauthors and believers. Theology also determines the canon of revelation, the actual interpretation of certain texts,the relative value of these texts, and their interpretations, and even the very hermeneutical principles used ininterpreting. Theology governs, both epistemologically and ontologically, the interpretation of revealed texts, andonly through it can the Hermeneutical Circle be broken in the interpretation of revelation. It is only throughtheology, moreover, that divine intentions can be gleaned and interpreters can effectively respond to the problemof textual errors. In short, only in the theological approach to the interpretation of revelation can one find solutionsto the difficulties faced by other kinds of interpretations." (p. 144) That then is a quick, outline sketch of Gracia's project. The scope of inquiry is limited to propositional meaningand revelation is understood as a text. An attempt to simply capture the meaning of the text through aninterpretation-whether that meaning be as intended by the author or received by the audience-fails or, at best, istrivial and we need a relational interpretation. Specifically we need an interpretation that interprets the text interms of its place in a theological tradition. About Prof. Gracia's views, I have one clarifying question and onemore general query. Fi...
