text presented as an interpretation of the revelation. Finally what do we meanby revelation-the event, the meaning, the text-object itself? These fundamental terms need to be made clear toappreciate Gracia's arguments about how revealed texts should be interpreted. To eliminate the suspense andso you know from the start where we are headed, I'll tell you right now what Gracia's conclusion is. He writesthat:"Divine revelation may be interpreted in various legitimate ways but the primary and essential component of asatisfactory interpretation of divine revelation is theological. ... A theological interpretation is not, as manymistakenly hold, the understanding of what the divinity wishes believers to understand, but rather what atheological tradition considers to be a divine message. (p. xii)Revealed texts are properly interpreted as contributions to an established religious tradition. In addition, atheological interpretation is what Gracia will call a relational interpretation as opposed to a meaninginterpretation. It asks about the meaning of the text as it stands in relation to a theological tradition. Now sincewe are reading it in the light of a particular theological tradition, and there are a number of such traditions, weare immediately faced with the possibility of a plurality of equally legitimate readings. It is no wonder that the lasttwo chapters of Gracia's book are devoted to the possibility of definitive meanings and the threat of relativism.And I suppose it's no surprise that these topics are also the focus of my colleagues' comments. There are two pragmatic constraints on Gracia's project. First, he is focusing solely on propositional content inrevelation. Debates over interpretation are almost always over the content of the message. Revelation mayinspire us, calm us, orient us, but rarely can it do this without propositional content. If revelation does revealsomething that transcends all propositional expression, than "we...
