在《德國民法典》生效前，德國的民法史與民法釋義學之間是共生的、緊密相聯的關係。二者在1900年以後的日益分離，民法的法典化固然是最直接的原因，但也與法律實證主義和法學教育改革有關。 儘管法律史日益歷史學化，但仍是德國大學法學院的課程。一些學者也主張法律史和法釋義學相結合的研究方向，並從不同角度為法律史研究進行辯護，如法律進化論、法律模型論、歷史－批判法學等。二戰以後，德國法律史研究的視野日益轉向歐洲。在圍繞歐洲私法趨同的討論中，歷史比較法學引起了廣泛關注。這再一次提醒人們民法史對於民法釋義學的重要意義。 對於繼受西方法制的中國大陸和臺灣而言，對法律史與法釋義學的關係進行反思，提倡法律史與法釋義學相結合的研究，有助於避免法律繼受停留在較淺表的層面。

Before the implementation of the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, BGB), the history and the dogmatics of German civil law had been closely, almost symbiotically, intertwined. The codification of civil law at the turn of the twentieth century is directly responsible for the separation of these two realms. In this context, legal positivism and the reform of legal education have played an indispensable role. Despite increasing historicization, however, legal history remains an essential curriculum in Faculties of Law. Several authors defend, in particular, the connection between legal history and legal dogmatics. They legitimize legal history from a number of vantage points, the most prominent being the doctrine of legal evolution, the doctrine of legal models and the historical-critical school of civil law. Since the Second World War, German research in legal history has been marked by an ever-increasing focus on Europe. As part of the debates around the approximation of private law among European countries, the comparative history of law has attracted increasing attention. This speaks again to the relevance of legal history for legal dogmatics. It proves that legal history entails more than mere knowledge of the past and can serve contemporary concerns. The relationship between legal history and legal dogmatics may prove particularly useful in the contexts of Mainland China and Taiwan to prevent superficial and simplistic receptions of Western law.