Towards Understanding of the Practice of Proclamation: The Core Element of Russian Baptist Worship, Timofey Cheprasov, 2015

Vandevelde refers to three levels of meaning present in a process of interpretation with interpreters normally focusing either on all three (in such case the suggested levels represent ‘an ascending order’ in which interpretation happens). These levels are (1) the author’s intention, (2) ‘the meaning of the text, in the sense of what its words and 33 Puzynin, “The Tradition of the Gospel Christians...,” p 45. 4 Bol Vandevelde, The Task of the Interpreter: Text, Meaning, and Negotiation (Pittsburgh, PA, University of Pittsburgh Press, 2005), p 2. ® Ibid., pp 3-4. 198 sentences say,’ or the literal meaning, and (3) the representative content of the text, °® Developing this concept, Vandevelde argues which is ‘the meaning that readers see. that since understanding the text’s literal meaning depends on the interpreter’s ‘mastery of language,’ and authorial intent, although in most cases is made ‘as clear as possible’ still it cannot be unquestionably defined (due to the impossibility to fully recreate original context and meet the author), therefore all these categories of meaning have to be in continuous interaction.>” Such supposition brings an important conclusion, Vandevelde argues that it is the process of interpretation, rather than any of the above mentioned levels of meaning, which yields constancy to an interpretation. Both the interpreter and the receiving community are given significant roles in the process of discernment of the meaning. The interpreters must prove the truth of their ‘interpretive claims’ at every level of interpretation, as well as make a case for the correctness of their interpretation, and its relevance to ‘the pragmatic situation that exists at the time’ depending on the purpose of the interpretation — ‘to reinforce such a situation or 738 challenge it.’-” Consequently, this establishes the need for the interpreter to be accountable to the community, which can accept or reject suggested meaning. Hence, interpreters must see themselves as part of ‘the community of investigators,’ both *© Ibid., pp 8-9. It might be helpful to bring in the understanding of the literal sense of the Scripture as developed by Hans W. Frei, who sees literal meaning as something that is defined by the consensus of the reading community, thus, should not be seen as something static, but dynamic, allowing transformation and development. Frei wrote, ‘... the literal meaning of the text is precisely that meaning which finds the greatest degree of agreement in the use of the text in the religious community. If there is agreement in that use, than take that to be the literal sense... So the first sense of the literal reading stems from the use of the text in the church.’ (Types of Christian Theology, p 15). 3? Vandevelde, The Task of the Interpreter, p 11. Cf. Campbell’s argument that literal sense of the Bible is not ‘a static, closed, rigid thing, but is rather embedded i