One of the characteristics of classic texts is that in new contexts, they acquire new meanings and thus remain relevant. Here, I would like to illustrate this by discussing the interpretation of Anselm's Proslogion. Traditionally, the Proslogion has been read as presenting the ontological argument for the existence of God. In the early twentieth century, however, Karl Barth offered a new interpretation: Anselm does not offer an argument for the existence of God, but, to the contrary, he shows that all theology should be rooted in revelation. In the middle of the twentieth century, another and also influential interpretation was added by Charles Hartshorne, who used the Proslogion to argue for the bipolar concept of God of process theology. By the end of the twentieth century, Thomas V. Morris used the Proslogion as the first articulation of the method of perfect being theology, which, according to him, should be the method of all philosophical theology. And in the early twenty-first century, Robert McMahon argued that against its Neoplatonic background, the Proslogion should not be read as a philosophical treatise, but as a spiritual treatise dealing with the mystical ascent to God. This paper will discuss these various interpretations and show how each of them can be defended as being a natural interpretation, while all of them are also very much influenced by the contexts from which they emerged.