is also the issue ofindividuating texts. If the text merely is the physical elements which makes meaning possible, then one runs intoproblems such as each Bible constitutes a different text. To try to get around this by focusing on the meaningrather than the constituents would undermine the point of speaking of texts as revelation. Gracia avoids the twoproblematic extremes-text as merely the meaning constituents and texts as merely meanings-by arguing that atext should be considered as "the entities that constitute it taken in relation to the meaning it is intended toconvey" (p.28).In his discussion of interpretation, Gracia wants not only to further the analysis of what kind of interpretation isappropriate for revealed texts, but to make clear that there are a number of different kinds of interpretation andmuch of the debate over the nature of "the proper" interpretation dissolves when one realizes that there are avariety of kinds of interpretation. "Different kinds of interpretations of the same text may coexist without difficultybecause the same interpretation2 may be intended to, and effectively, carry out several functions at once" (p.38). The first distinction Gracia makes is between an interpretation as an understanding, as a mental act-Graciawill refer to this as interpretation1-and an interpretation as another text created to elucidate the meaning of therevelation-Gracia refers to this as interpretation2. Interpretations1 (understandings) are required forinterpretations2 (texts) to be produced; yet often interpretations2 (texts) are necessary for the occurrence ofinterpretations1. So the two types of interpretation are clearly interconnected. In addition to these categoriesGracia distinguishes meaning interpretations from relational interpretations. Meaning interpretations attempt todiscern the meaning of the text as it stands. There are four candidates for what this might mean. We may bespeaking of meaning "as what the histor...
