ndsight puts us in a better positionthan the author to understand his or her text, such arguments will no longer work. There is nothing omniscientbeings don't understand about a text they author. In fact, that fact-that an interpretation could never be adequateto the divine author's understanding-may present a problem for intentionalism in the case of revealed texts.(Indeed Gracia argues that it is such a problem.) So questions of divine authorship shed light on and transformstandard, philosophical issues of interpretation theory. They force us to be more articulate about our interpretiveprojects; and on that score Gracia's work introduces a level of conceptual clarity unprecedented in the literatureon this topic. We have a severely tangled set of issues in front of us and I consider it my responsibility as the first respondentto lay the groundwork of Gracia's project so that in the course of further discussion today we can be sure we aremore or less on the same page. Also, although any good book leaves you wanting more, as this one does, it'sunfair to criticize an author for not writing a different book than he or she has written. Our focus today is on thisbook here and the questions the book sets out to answer. To do that, we need to first know the scope of theproject. Over what range of cases does Gracia think his arguments operate? Naturally the Bible and the Koranare paradigmatic examples of divinely revealed texts, but how about the Sutras? Does it make sense to think ofthe teachings of the Buddha as divinely revealed? Connected to establishing the scope of the project is laying outthe basic terminology of the project. What counts as a text? Certainly the Bible, but how about first handtestimony of visions? How about burning bushes? Is the interpretation of the revealed meaning in a burning bushthe same as the interpretation of a text? What exactly do we mean by interpretation-does an understandingsuffice, or must there be another...
