We have been exploring the possibility that God speaks. It is time now to turn to issues of interpretation. When confronted with a purported case of divine discourse, how does one set about interpreting the phenomenon so as to find out what God said? Of course, Antony and Augustine didn't do anything that could be described as “setting about” interpreting. Though they interpreted, they didn't set about doing that. They just found themselves believing that God was then and there saying so-and-so to them – rather as we, when engaged in conversation, typically interpret what our conversational partners say without setting about doing so. We must not lose such cases from view; they occupy an important place in the whole picture of divine discourse. But in my discussion of interpretation, I propose focusing on cases in which we do set about interpreting.

I also propose focusing on the interpretation of texts. I have repeatedly called attention to the fact that the Judaic, the Christian, and the Islamic traditions all claim that the media of divine speech comprise much more than texts – indeed, much more than words, whether those be in the form of texts or not. God speaks by way of burning bushes, mystical experiences, national calamities – and centrally, so Christians claim, by the very presence among us of a certain person, Jesus of Nazareth.