ical author understood (authorial interpretation); as what a particularaudience understood (audiencial interpretation); as independent of what the historical author understood orintended or what a particular audience understood (independent meaning interpretation); or as any one of thesesenses but including its implications" (p. 38). In contrast to meaning interpretations, relational interpretationsattempt to interpret the work with relation to something else (for example, as an instance of male bias, as a signof Plato's enduring influence, or as a contribution to an understanding of Christ's divinity). So the success of aninterpretation depends on the function of the interpretation and a number of different interpretations canpeacefully coexist as long as they have different functions. Gracia consistently considers both interpretations1and interpretations2 in his analyses, though again since he is focused on texts, interpretation2 is his main focus.Even though he argues that the individuation of texts is given by "the entities that constitute it taken in relation tothe meaning it is intended to convey" (p.28), suggesting that authorial intention belongs essentially to theinterpretation of a text, he actually argues that no meaning interpretation alone could be the best way to interpretrevealed texts. Only relational interpretations, and specifically theological interpretations, will work. Clearly, hisarguments about authorial interpretations are absolutely crucial for his conclusion and they deserve our closescrutiny. Intentionalism, the view that authorial intentions are (at least in part) determinative of the meaning of the texttakes on a distinctive bent when applied to revealed texts. First it is often the case that there are, in addition tothe divine author, human authors acting as intermediaries. Among the multiple authors, whose intentions arerelevant? Generally it's understood that the divine author is the real author and there...
