If we remember that throughout the Soviet period not a single study of any significance in the religious field was published in Russia (with the exception of a few liturgical books), because any search in the religious-spiritual field was subjected to strict censorship or ideologically directed from above, then the importance of Bishop Cassian's work will be revealed in its entirety. Indeed, this work reconstructs the link between the original Russian research tradition and our time: the work of Bishop Cassian represents the missing link between exegetical studies in Russia in the period before and after the Soviet era.

The study of the Johannine writings invariably occupied a special place both in the personal spiritual reflection and in the scientific activity of Bishop Cassian. With a high degree of probability, it can be argued that the Apocalypse of John became the first topic of his research. At the same time, the scholar did not separate it from the other Johannine writings, to the study of which he turned in subsequent years.

A special interest in John is evidenced by many publications of the young researcher at that time. In 1930, he published an article in the journal "The Way" entitled "The Book of the Seven Seals", in which four works devoted to the Apocalypse were considered (Alo, Charles, Zahn, Lomeye). In 1939, the scientist published La Pentecote Johannique (Jo XX, 19-23) (St. John's Pentecost [Jn. XX, 19-23]"), which was the topic of his scientific dissertation at the Protestant Faculty of Montpellier (work on it began as early as 1927). After the war, he brought back from Mount Athos a work entitled "By Water, and Blood, and Spirit (I Jn. V, 6-8)", which later became his doctoral dissertation, which he defended at the Paris Theological Institute on June 16/29, 1947. In 1951, in the journal Tserkovny Vestnik, he published a review of Bratsiotis' book dedicated to the Apocalypse. In 1955, in Orthodox Thought (No X, pp. 140-152), he published a review of three books, among which was a study by Dodd (S. N. Dodd. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel). Finally, he wrote the introduction to the Gospel of John, lectures he gave at the Paris Theological Institute, which later formed the basis of our Commentary on the Gospel of John. The manuscript is dated 1958 and 1960. However, throughout his life, the author constantly returned to this work, supplemented it and made corrections to it.

Of course, Bishop Cassian's publications are not limited to John's studies and cover the entire corpus of the New Testament. However, it can be said that the Evangelist John invariably stood at the center of the author's reflections, being his favorite and chosen topic. As for the "Commentary on the Gospel of John", it occupies a special place

among all the works devoted to John by Cassian Bezobrazov, for, in his own words, "it is a matter of the whole of <his> life."

What are the peculiarities of the approach to the Evangelist John that are characteristic of the exegetical method of Bishop Cassian? What is the essence of the method he uses?

Generally speaking, it can be argued that there are two types of exegesis, modern and ancient: one is scientific, the other spiritual; one is analytical, the other is synthetic; one is historical, the other is symbolic. At the same time, they are not mutually exclusive, but are two approaches that are inseparable from each other and in practice complement each other, since each emphasizes a special aspect of Scripture. That is why their distinction, which is purely theoretical, makes the task easier, since it makes it possible to distinguish better the two tendencies, the two schools that guide the exegetical search for the past and the present.

In modern exegetical research, conducted on a strictly critical basis, all the resources of historical knowledge, as well as all analytical capabilities, are used in order to reveal the exact meaning of the text. Thanks to this, the researcher can more reliably avoid any subjective reading, any attempt to endow this or that passage of Scripture with an absolute, timeless meaning, tear it out of the historical context in which it was born. Such technical and historical analysis quite naturally turns to synthetic views, taking into account the totality of the context of Holy Scripture. This is the scientific method of modern exegesis: it can protect us from subjective reading of the text, but at the same time it is subject to the risk of linguistic reduction.

In a different exegetical approach, the researcher does not attach much importance to the origin of the texts, but perceives them directly as the Word of God, that is, in faith, in order to illuminate its path. Such exegesis focuses on the symbolic meaning—a meaning that is invariably new—that constantly enlightens every reader of Holy Scripture. Such a spiritual or symbolic method protects against linguistic reduction, but, when used outside the authentic tradition of the Church, is fraught with the danger of a subjective and even charming reading of the text.

Что же касается преосвященного Кассиана, несомненно, как экзегет он ясно сознает все научные требования первой школы, однако сам в полной мере (следовало бы сказать: глубинно) принадлежит ко второй школе, то есть школе традиционной и патристической. Для него противопоставление науки и традиции, истории и символа лишено всякого смысла, ибо отречение от первого приводит к отказу быть человеком, а отречение от второго — к отвержению христианской веры; однако истинное христианское учение неизменно есть учение богочеловеческое. В этом и заключается та наиглавнейшая «весть», какую епископ стремился определить — раскрывая в Евангелии Иоанна сопряженность между историей и символом.

История и символ не противостоят, но взаимно охватывают и освещают друг друга. Здесь нет требования: «либо история, либо символ», но ясное утверждение того, что история и символ сосуществуют «неслиянно и нераздельно» тогда, когда мы пытаемся осознать всю полноту тайны Христовой. Сегодня подобный — «халкидонский» — подход представляется чем-то самоочевидным. Однако все обстояло по-иному, когда преосвященный Кассиан еще только приступал к своим изысканиям: в ту пору для многих

такой подход был новым и дерзким (для Православной же Церкви — вполне естественным и традиционным). Выражая свою мысль более просто и образно, преосвященный Кассиан сравнивает Евангелие с иконой — куском дерева, носящим на себе отблеск Божественной реальности!

Подобная концепция экзегезы определяет и свойственный ей образ действия: постоянно дело идет о поиске наиглавнейшего «сообщения» евангелиста Иоанна, ибо парадоксальным образом в Слове Божьем вначале целокупное единство текста лучше освещает подробности, нежели эти последние — текст. Действительно, наиболее важное — это ясное и отчетливое выявление единства данного по откровению Священного Писания. Используя иной язык, можно было бы говорить о поиске глобального смысла — смысла, который имел в виду богодухновенный писатель и который необходимо заново и как можно более точно раскрыть, чтобы сегодня пользоваться текстом во всей полноте его аутентичного смысла.

В связи с этой центральной Иоанновой вестью скажем еще: преосвященный Кассиан прилагал все усилия к тому, чтобы наиболее точно определить ее, исследуя все Иоанновские тексты — тексты, которые он никогда не отделял друг от друга, ибо усматривал в них единое — трояким и явным образом выраженное — учение: в плане веры — Евангелие; в плане надежды — Апокалипсис; в плане милосердия — Послания.