Historical-grammatical method

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The historical-grammatical method (or Grammatico-Historical method) of biblical studies is a type of Biblical hermeneutics, or method of approaching and interpreting the Bible, which stems from the principle of single meaning. Milton S. Terry said: "A fundamental principle in grammatico-historical exposition is that the words and sentences can have but one signficance in one and the same connection. The moment we neglect this principle we drift out upon a sea of uncertainty and conjecture." (M.S. Terry, Biblical Hermenteutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments [1885; reprint, Grand Rapids: Zonervan, 1947], page 205. In essence, the Grammatico-Historical approach to interpreting Scripture essentially says that while there is one interpretation for the text, there can be and are a variety of applications.

According to Robert L. Thompson in his book on hermeneutics, the scholar utilizing the Grammatico-Historical interpretation of Scripture "(Interprets) each statement in light of the principles of grammar and the facts of history. Take each statement in its plain sense if it matches common sense, and do not look for another sense." (Robert L. Thompson, Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Verses the Old, [2002, Kregel Publications], page 155.

Contents 1 Grammatical-Historical vs. literal interpretation 2 The original meaning of texts 3 Implications of interpretations 4 Comparison with historical-critical method 5 See also 6 References

[edit] Grammatical-Historical vs. literal interpretation

In direct contrast to strictly literal interpretations, which tends to disregard context, the Grammatico-Historical method will never take a surface 'plain meaning' interpretation of a text unless it first qualifies whether or not the text should be read differently within the context that it is found in the Bible, especially regarding Biblical genres such as parables, prophecy, apocalyptic, poetry, wisdom literature, and in regard to figures of speech and idioms.

The Grammatico-Historical interpretation of a Biblical text is in no way the same as considering the Bible to be fallible. The vast majority of those who make use of this interpretative method consider the Scriptures to be the inspired, infallible and inerrant Word of God. Literalists have in the past accused those using the Grammatico-Historical to be Biblical liberals, a tag most Grammatico-Historical interpreters reject.^{[citation needed]}

R. C. Sproul draws a distinction between literalistic interpretation and literal interpretation. When referencing the Grammatico-Historical interpretation as "literal", Sproul states that the term does not mean "wooden literal", but simply means that the text is to be interpreted according to its appropriate literary style. For example, historical narrative is to be interpreted as historical literature, didactic literature is to be interpreted as teaching literature, apocalyptic literature is to be interpreted as apocalyptic literature, prophecy is to be as prophetic literature, poetry is to be interpreted as poetic literature, and so on.^[1]

[edit] The original meaning of texts

The aim of the grammatical-historical approach is to first understand what the section of the Bible in question would have meant to its original hearers. The secondary task, which follows only after clear understanding of a text has been reached through the completion of the primary task, is to seek to find how this text applies in our modern context. Hence, a foundational question asked by grammatical-historical interpreters asks is this: Would this interpretation have made sense and have been understandable to the original hearers or addressees who first received this section of the Bible? If the answer to this question is no, the grammatical-historical interpreter must return to the text to find what it would have meant in its original context.

In a reversal of the commonly-held approach to Scripture, in which the first question to be answered has to do with contemporary application, the grammatical-historical approach asks first what the Bible meant to its original audience in their original context, and only then turns to the question of what the text, in light of its primary meaning to its original audience, means for Christians today.

[edit] Implications of interpretations

The results of grammatical-historical interpretations of Scripture are often at odds with extremist interpretations often associated with Fundamentalism and various cults springing from Christian backgrounds. One example of this is in the difference in understanding of Christian eschatology and the meanings of prophetic, apocalyptic and eschatological Biblical texts (see Summary of Christian eschatological differences).

[edit] Comparison with historical-critical method

Main article: Historical-critical method

The historical-grammatical method has sometimes been compared and contrasted with the historical-critical method. Both methods seek first to understand the original meaning of the text. There are two main differences:

1. The historical-critical method is a standard set of techniques for understanding ancient texts. The historical-grammatical method is used only in Bible study.
2. The historical-critical method includes looking at other texts from the same time period to understand the meanings of words and phrases. The historical-grammatical method looks strictly at other biblical uses of the word or phrase.

Both of these differences in method stem from historical-grammatical proponents' belief that the Bible is not like other texts, and should not be treated like them.

[edit] See also

• Biblical genre
• Biblical inerrancy
• Biblical literalism
• Biblical theology
• Bibliology
• Covenantalism
• Dispensationalism
• Higher criticism
• Postmodern Christianity
• Summary of Christian eschatological differences
• Systematic theology
• Textual criticism
• Historical-critical method

[edit] References

1. ^ R.C. Sproul, Knowing Scripture, ISBN 0877847339. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1977.