The historical-grammatical method is a Christian hermeneutical method that strives to discover the Biblical author's original intended meaning in the text.[1] It is the primary method of interpretation for many conservative Protestant exegetes who reject the historical-critical method.[2] The other main branch of Christianity, the Eastern Orthodox church, uses primarily a spiritual, allegorizing hermeneutic heavily dependent on the Christian fathers of the first several centuries of Christianity.[3] The process for determining the original meaning of the text is through examination of the grammatical and syntactical aspects, the historical background, the literary genre as well as theological (canonical) considerations.[4] The historical-grammatical method distinguishes between the one original meaning of the text and its significance. The significance of the text is essentially the application or contextualization of the principles from text.
Contents |
The aim of the historical-grammatical method is to discover the meaning of the passage as the original author would have intended and what the original hearers would have understood. The original passage is seen as having only a single meaning or sense. As Milton S. Terry said: "A fundamental principle in grammatico-historical exposition is that the words and sentences can have but one significance in one and the same connection. The moment we neglect this principle we drift out upon a sea of uncertainty and conjecture." [5]
Many practice the historical-grammatical method using the inductive method, a general three-fold approach to the text: 1) observation, 2) interpretation, and 3) application.[6][7] Each step builds upon the other, and so they follow in order. The first step of observation involves an examination of words, structure, structural relationships and literary forms. After observations are formed, then the second step of interpretation involves asking interpretative questions, formulating answers to those questions, integration and summarization of the passage. After the meaning is derived through interpretation, then the third step of application involves determining both the theoretical and practical significance of the text, and appropriately applying this significance to today's modern context. There is also a heavy emphasis on personal application that extends into all aspects of the practitioner's life. Theologian Robert Traina, in his 1952 Methodical Bible Study, wrote that "the applicatory step is that for which all else exists. It represents the final purpose of Bible study." [8]
Technically speaking, the grammatical-historical method of interpretation is distinct from the determination of the passage's significance in light of that interpretation. Taken together, interpretation of the passage along with determining the meaning defines the term (Biblical) hermeneutics.[9]
In the proof-text approach, verses and short sections of text are used to support a particular topic or position. Compared with the historical-grammatical method, interpretations based on the proof-text method are often isolated from the context surrounding the verse. Critics claim it often neglects the historical setting and type of literary genre. They also claim that the proof-text approach can be utilized in support of heterodox teachings, and that applications tend to be allegorical in nature.[10]
In the reader-response method, the focus is on how the book is perceived by the reader, not on the intention of the author. For those who regard the text as divinely inspired and seek to determine the intention of the divine author tend to stay away from this method because of the many interpretations, often contrary to scripture, that arise from a reader response of the text without any formal foundation of the text.
The historical-critical method is used by academic Bible scholars in universities, including many Roman Catholic and Protestant institutions. The method utilizes higher criticism in an attempt to discover the sources and factors that contributed to the making of the text as well as determining what it meant to the original audience. Scholars who use the historical-critical method treat the Bible as they would any other text.[11] Historical-critical scholars as such are also typically less interested in determining what the text means for people today. For these reasons some traditional scholars and conservative Christians tend to reject the method, although even many of these use aspects of it that naturally overlap with the historical-grammatical method (such as attempting to determine what the original author meant when he wrote the passage in question).