[1] 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.
[2] It is the primary method of interpretation for many conservative Protestant exegetes who reject the historical-critical method to various degrees (from complete rejection by some fundamentalist Protestants, to moderated acceptance by the Roman Catholic tradition since the Divino afflante Spiritu encyclical letter),[3] in contrast to the overwhelming reliance on historical-critical interpretation in biblical studies at the academic level.
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.
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.
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.
However, many exegetes who claim to use the historical-grammatical method selectively choose historical data or perform superficial lexical analysis,[11] 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.
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.
[20] In contrast to the historical-grammatical method[citation needed], historical criticism does not aim to determine what a text means for people today nor to produce novel theological insights.