The two proposals of pentecostal hermeneutics in dialogue: the post-modern and the historical-grammatical one

Abstract

The article examines two strands of contemporary Pentecostal hermeneutics: the first, the most recent proposal, classified as postmodern and called the 'aesthetics of textual reception', which emphasises the personal experience of the believer as an integral, important and predominant part of the process of interpreting Scripture; the second, the more traditional view of biblical interpretation based on grammatical interpretation, called the 'historical-grammatical method'. Postmodern hermeneutics attack traditional historical-grammatical hermeneutics as an attempt to Calvinise Pentecostalism, while grammatical hermeneutics emphasise the need to maintain a degree of control in the interpretation of the Bible, appealing to the traditional way in which the Bible has been read over the centuries. Methodologically, a critical-comparative approach has been developed between traditional Pentecostal hermeneutics with a historical-grammatical basis and postmodern Pentecostal hermeneutics based on the aesthetics of the reception of the text, using content analysis and a systematic bibliographical review to examine historical-grammatical and aesthetic hermeneutics of reception in the Pentecostal context, and a historical-descriptive perspective to contextualise the development of these hermeneutics within Pentecostalism. The research also engages with hermeneutic phenomenology, evaluating the role of experience in biblical interpretation, especially in the postmodern model. The analysis focuses on the theoretical foundations, interpretive methods and practical implications of each approach, highlighting their contributions and limitations for Pentecostal theology and practice. The main findings can be summarised in three points: First, postmodern hermeneutics based on the "aesthetics of textual reception" is still seeking acceptance in the Pentecostal milieu, where it has been severely criticised for somehow equating or even placing the personal experience of the believer above Scripture and Church teaching; secondly, traditional hermeneutics, based on grammaticality, has in its favour the fact that it is the historical interpretation of the church and, moreover, the one that has provided the doctrinal basis not only of Pentecostalism but of the Christian church itself; thirdly: Pentecostal hermeneutics went through a pre-critical phase, represented by the first exponents, such as. thirdly: Pentecostal hermeneutics went through a pre-critical phase, represented by the first exponents, such as Seymour and Bartleman; a second phase (as indicated by Archer: 'the hermeneutics of the first Pentecostals'), in which there was a technical concern with hermeneutics, in which the 'historical-grammatical' method of interpretation was adopted; and a third phase, in which there is a strong postmodern proposal for hermeneutics based on the 'aesthetics of the reception of the text'. The debate is still open and is likely to continue for years to come.