The historical-grammatical method is a modern Christian hermeneutical method that strives to discover the biblical authors' original intended meaning in the text. According to the historical-grammatical method, if based on an analysis of the grammatical style of a passage (with consideration to its cultural, historical, and literary context), it appears that the author intended to convey an account of events that actually happened, then the text should be taken as representing history; passages should only be interpreted symbolically, poetically, or allegorically if to the best of our understanding, that is what the writer intended to convey to the original audience. It is the primary method of interpretation for many conservative Protestant exegetes who reject the historical-critical method to various degrees (from the complete rejection of historical criticism of some fundamentalist Protestants to the moderated acceptance of it in the Roman Catholic tradition since the Divino afflante Spiritu encyclical letter), in contrast to the overwhelming reliance on historical-critical interpretation in biblical studies at the academic level.

The historical-grammatical method arose in the context of the Enlightenment in the Western world. Prior to this, Medieval Christianity tended to emphasize the four senses of Scripture: the literal, allegorical, moral, and anagogical; however, interpretation is always subject to the Church's magisterium. 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. While there is not a common Eastern Orthodox Christian hermeneutic, Orthodox scholars tend to draw upon spiritual and allegorical readings of the Bible, in conversation with the Church Fathers and the Church's traditions.

Historical development
The historical-grammatical method appeared in the eighteenth century when German scholars applied philological and the nascent scholarly historiographical methods to biblical studies, guided by the Enlightenment rationality. The founder of historical-grammatical method was the scholar Johann August Ernesti  (1707-1781) who, while not rejecting the historical-critical method of his time, emphasized the perspicuity of Scripture, the principle that the Bible communicates through the normal use of words and grammar, making it understandable like any other book. Ernesti's set of interpretive principles and practices first received the name the historical-grammatical method or historical-grammatical method of interpretation in the book Elementa Hermeneutices Novi Testamenti (1811) by Karl Augustus Theophilos Keil (1754-1818).  "In passing mention ought to be made of J. A Ernesti who so emphasized the grammatical meaning of the words that Holy Writ has no future meaning and is comparable to any other book; and also J. S. Semler, who, although he did not wish to be counted among the rationalists nevertheless advanced its cause and its prominence by his one-sided emphasis upon the historical method and by relying upon the accommodation theory, holding that Jesus adjusted himself to the views of His day."

In reaction to the appropriation of the historical-critical method by rationalist and liberal Protestant scholars, the conservative theologian and journalist Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg (1802 - 1869) embraced the historical-grammatical method as a bulwark of orthodoxy in defense of the historicity of miracles and inspiration of the Scriptures. Based on this method, scholars Franz Delitzsch (1813–1890) and Johann Friedrich Karl Keil (1807 - 1888) wrote extensive biblical commentaries, consolidating the existence of the historical-grammatical method, independent from both the pietist reading and the historical-critical reading of the Bible, thus separating the interpretive methods born out of the Enlightenment modernity. The translation of Ernesti's works into English by Moses Stuart and its subsequent adoption as a textbook at the Andover Theological Seminary and the Princeton Theological Seminary made the method popular among English-speaking evangelicals.

During polemics between science and religion in the Nineteenth century, the historical-critical method of biblical hermeneutics became associated with liberal theology while the "conservative" or "traditionalist" position was supposed to adopt the historical-grammatical method. However, an American pioneer of liberal theology, Hosea Ballou, employed the historical-grammatical method; while the traditional evangelical scholar, William Robertson Smith, adhered to the historical-critical methods. Amid these controversies, adherents of the historical-grammatical method embraced the liberal theologian Benjamin Jowett's concept of each biblical text having only one signification determined by the authorial intent.

In the twentieth century, theologically conservative theologians claimed that their methods of exegesis were based on the historical-grammatical method. However, many exegetes who claim to use the historical-grammatical method selectively choose historical data or perform superficial lexical analysis, as well as reject the cornerstone concept of this method: the perspicuity of the Scriptures, which does not require cosmovision presuppositions or a special illumination by the Holy Spirit to attain the "correct interpretation" of the Scriptures.

Original meaning of texts
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."

Many practice the historical-grammatical method using the inductive method, a general three-fold approach to the text: observation, interpretation, and application. Each step builds upon the other, which follows 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, 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."

Technically speaking, the historical-grammatical method of interpretation is distinct from the determination of the passage's significance in light of that interpretation. Together, interpretation of the passage and determining the meaning define the term "hermeneutics".

Comparison with other methods of interpretations

Other literal methods 
The historical-grammatical method is not the only method based on a literal reading of the Bible. Among other methods are the exegesis of the ancient School of Antioch, the approach of the Karaites, the Golden-age Spanish Jewish rationalism, some scholastics like the School of St. Victor, the philogical method of the Reformers, the Protestant scholasticism of the Puritans and Francis Turretin, the devotional reading of the Pietists, and the Biblical Reading method of the evangelical Victorians. What makes the Historical-grammatical method unique is its insistence on the possibility of attaining a single objective reading, based upon the Enlightenment's Cartesian rationalism or Common-Sense realism.

Reader-response method
In the reader-response method, the focus is on how the book is perceived by the reader, not on the intention of the author. While the methods focused on the Aesthetics of reception the objective is how the book is perceived by the reader without worrying about the authorial intent or original audiences, the historical-grammatical method considers the reader-response irrelevant. Reader-centered methods are diverse, including canonical criticism, confessional hermeneutics, and contextual hermeneutics. Nevertheless, the historical-grammatical method shares with reader-centered methods the interest in understanding the text as it became received by the earliest interpretive communities and throughout the history of Bible interpretation. Moreover, neither approach rejects assumptions of orthodoxy nor belief in the supernatural.

Historical-critical method
The historical-critical method is used by many academic Bible scholars in universities, including many Roman Catholic and Protestant institutions. The method uses different approaches, like source criticism, genre criticism, tradition criticism, and redaction criticism in an attempt to discover the sources and factors that contributed to the making of the text as well as to determine what it meant to the original audience. There also a systematic use of historical, sociologia, archeological, linguistic, anthropological and comparative mythology data. Scholars who use the historical-critical method treat the Bible as they would any other text. In contrast to the historical-grammatical method, historical-criticism does not aim to determine what a text means for people today nor to produce novel theological insights. For those reasons, some traditional scholars and conservative Christians tend to reject the method, even though many of them use aspects of it that naturally overlap with the historical-grammatical method, such as attempting to determine what was meant when a passage was written.

See also

Biblical genre
Biblical inerrancy
Biblical literalism
Biblical theology
Covenantalism
Dispensationalism
New Covenant Theology
Higher criticism
Postmodern Christianity
Summary of Christian eschatological differences
Systematic theology
Textual criticism

References

Biblical studies
Hermeneutics
역사적 문법적 방법(historical-grammatical method)은 성경 본문에서 성경 저자의 원래의 의도된 의미를 발견하기 위한 기독교 해석학 방법이다. 16세기에 형성, 발전한 이 방법론은 특히 서방교회 종교개혁 찬성파(개신교)에서 활용하였다. 기독교 성경 해석 전통인 '역사적 성경해석'과 '알레고리 성경해석'의 측면에서 보면 역사적 성경해석의 방법론 중 하나이다.

역사적 문법적 성경해석의 역사적 배경
실제 로마 제국의 문화와 문명을 이은 동방 로마제국인 비잔티움 제국은 4세기부터 15세기까지 존속하였다. 비잔티움 제국의 쇠락과 서유럽지역의 르네상스는 깊은 연관을 지닌다. 15세기 비잔티움 제국이 멸망하는 과정에서 기독교 학자들이 같은 기독교 국가인 서유럽 지역이나 러시아 지역으로 이주하였고, 헬라주의를 수용한 문명 즉 비잔티움 제국의 수준높은 문화와 문명 유산이 서유럽 지역에 직접 전달되었다. 또한 전쟁 중에 이슬람 군대에 빼앗긴 비잔티움 제국 도서관 서적들은 저렴한 가격에 중동 지역을 통해 서유럽에 들어왔다.

비잔티움 제국의 붕괴와 동방교회 문화
11세기 교회 대분열 사건으로 서방교회와 동방교회가 분리되었지만 여전히 로마 제국의 전통은 비잔티움 제국에 있었고, 문화적인 수준과 과학 수준에서 서방교회 지역은 동방교회 지역에 비해 낙후되어 있었다. 1204년 서방교회의 제4차 십자군이 동방교회 지역인 비잔티움 제국의 교회와 도시에서 약탈행위를 자행했던 사건들을 보면 비잔티움 지역에 서방교회 지역인 서유럽에서 접할 수 없는 수준 높은 문명이 존재했었다. 그러나 이런 약탈이 자행된 13세기 이후 완전히 단절된 상태가 되었다.

역사적 해석 방법론 유입
15세기 비잔티움 제국의 몰락 이후 같은 기독교 국가였던 서유럽지역, 서방교회에 다양한 비잔티움 제국의 문화와 학술적 자료가 유입되었다. 특히 성경해석분야에서 역사적 성경해석을 강조했던 안디옥 신학의 흐름을 따랐던 동방교회의 성경해석과 함께 고전문학의 역사적 해석 기법이 교황 중심의 알레고리 성경해석을 강조했던 서방교회에 큰 충격을 주었다.

특히 르네상스 운동에 알레고리 성경해석과 전혀 다른 역동적인 역사문법적 방법론의 수용은 성경해석뿐만 아니라 고전문학과 고전문헌들의 해석에 큰 힘이 되었다. 서방교회에서 잊었던 기독교의 또 다른 성경해석 전통인 역사적 성경해석 방법론을 재정립하는 계기가 되었다.

방법론의 발전
르네상스는 헬라와 로마의 고전에 관심을 가짐으로써 고전 해석에 새로운 관점을 열어주었다. 이런 영향을 받은 인문주의자들은 원전을  해석하는 학문적 방법까지 발전시켰다. 특히 헬라어 신약 성경 해석에 사용했다.
에라스무스는 헬라어 신약 성경의 첫판을 출판함으로써 역사적이며 문법적 해석 방법을 처음으로 시도했다. 그는 자신의 이 해석원리를 신약성경 ()의 서문에서 말했는데, 그가 제안한 것은 해석자가 원어와 그 시대의 역사적, 지리적 그리고  사회적 상황과 함께 문법적인 사용에 의해서 본문의 참된 의미를 이해해야 한다는 것이다.

종교개혁가들
루터와 칼뱅과 같은 서방교회 종교개혁 찬성파였던 종교개혁가(훗날 개신교)들은 성경을 정확하게 해석하기 위하여 인문주의자들의 언어역사적 방법을 채택하였다. 그들은 이 방법을 통하여 중세기 해석가들의 알레고리 방법론인 4중적 의미의 해석을 반대하고 역사적이며 문자적 의미를 강조했다. 동시에 교부들의 전통과 서방교회 교황의 권위에 의하여 해석되는 것을 반대하고, 성경이 성경을 해석하는 원리를 주장했다.

영향 
역사적 성경해석의 전통을 따르는 역사적 문법적 해석은 현대의 성경 해석학의 시초로 성경 저자의 의도를 바르게 전달하며, 독자들에게 학문적으로 성경을 이해하는데 도움을 주었다.
현대의 역사비평적 성격해석도 이런 흐름 속에 있다. 역사적 성경해석의 기법의 발전형태인 역사문법적 해석은 18세기 전후로 역사비평적 성경해석으로 발전하였고, 이후 다양한 성경 비평 방법론의 등장을 알린 성경해석 방법이다.

여러 관점들
현대 성경 신학의 주류를 이루는 역사비평학(historical-critical method) 또는 역사비평 성경해석은 역사적 성경해석의 전통을 따르며, 역사 문법적 성경해석의 발전 형태이다. 현재 역사적 문법적 방법은 여전히 종교개혁 전통을 지닌 개신교회에서 수용하는 방법이며, 역사비평 성경해석을 받아들이지 않는 보수 개신교 학자들도 사용하는 주요 성경해석 방법이다. 역사문법적 성경해석은 16세기 종교개혁 당시의 주요 성경해석 방법으로 수용되었고, 18세기에는 역사비평 성경해석으로 발전하는 토대가 되었다. 역사문법적 방법은 독자의 이해를 강조하는 독자 반응 해석과도 다르지만 본문의 역사적 상황과 본문의 문법적 구조와 특성을 이해하는데 강조점을 가진다.

같이 보기 
 역사적 성경해석
 4중적 의미의 해석
 신학적 해석학
 해석학 (철학)
 석의
 역사비평학

각주 

성서학
해석학 (철학)
성서해석학
성서비평학