In order to prove the Armenian provenance of St Nikolaos Church, S. Karapetyan should have presented either a ktitoral inscription of the church or a dated deed, permission by a Georgian kings (a feudal did need a king’s permission to build something in his estate), according to which it would be clear that a Georgian king permitted Armenian residents of Tbilisi to built a church named after Surb Nshan in Vertskhli Street. He cites no such document and ardently tries to ascertain that the church was Armenian, meanwhile defiantly referring to Pl. Ioseliani’s, G. Aghayants’s, Z. Chichinadze’s and others’ writings as “fictitious.” He believes that the references by Georgian scholar are “flam” because he is used to that his fellow countrymen scholars fake historical documents and to scholarly jugglery which is well-known.

Here is what the Russian Metropolitan writes to Porphyrius Uspensky, Doctor of Greek Philology: “Father Porphyrius, do not trust Armenians’ documents; they are not trustworthy. They used to make falsified documents, put them somewhere at a remote and dump place in order to let them turn yellow and resemble old documents.”

As we see, the falsification of facts was an ordinary technique of Armenian scholars and journalists in the 19th c. Based on this tradition, S. Karapetyan labeled the references by undesirable authors as “flam,” “fictitious,” “faked.” 

Now, let us see how popular the cult of St Nikolaos is in Georgia. It is true that his cult has not been that widespread as that of St Georgia, but it is much more popular than in Armenia. It should also be noted that the cult of St Nikolaos was more customary in the Orthodox Christian world than in Monophysite countries. Armenia is a Monophysite country. Hence, it is natural enough that Georgians named the church after St Nikolaos the Wondermaker as soon as they built it which was retained by way of inertia, but, when it was repossessed by Armenians, they called it Surb Nshan. If we want to follow the historical truth, we should refer to it as St Nikolaos the Wondermaker (Surb Nshan) Church of Tbilisi, and not vice versa, as S. Karapetyan tries to establish it (and not only he). By means of it, he wants the reader to get accustomed to the Armenian primacy of this church.

Let us see how many churches are named after St Nikolaos in Georgia: Nikortsminda (11th c.), Kintsvisi (12th c.), Vera (16th c.), Chughureti (17th c.), Narikala (11th c.), Tsintskaro (restored in the 19th c.), Tetritskaro (18th c.), Matani (16th c.), Gremi (16th-17th cc.), Lower Nichbisi (17th c.), Tandzia (17th c.); besides, there are three in Gori, two in Khashuri, etc. this is an incomplete list. As for the image of St Nikolaos the Wondermaker, it frequently occurs in wall paintings, predominantly in the row of the altar, of the father of the church, and rarely in the vault of the altar of St Nikolaos Church (12th c.). 

Presently, relief images of St Nikolaos are almost unknown except in Ananuri. It occurs only on a facet of the dome of St Nikolaos the Wondermaker (Surb Nshan) Church in Tbilisi. This is a stylistically distinct image presumably created in 1703.

As different fro fine arts, there are abounding translations of Keimenic and Metaphrastic versions of the life of St Nikolaos (by Euthymius the Athonite), etc.

The relief image on the facet of the dome of St Nikolaos Church is another proof that earlier it was Georgian. In 1703, Armenians essentially re-arranged and re-built the church, and built it for the first time, as it is stated in the Armenian inscription at the north entrance. The inscription also informs that it was “built” (1703) under King Levan; however, this is not attested by the deed of the Georgian king. It was in that period when an Armenian master carved the said relief image on the facet of the dome of St Nikolaos Church, thus adhering to the Georgian tradition of belonging of the church to St Nikolaos, but created the image keeping the style of the Armenian relief statue.

Thus, based on the discussed data it can be concluded that the references, provided by Pl. Ioseliani, G. Aghayants, Z. Chichinadze and others are trustworthy, there is not a single datum to question them, contrary to what S. Karapetyan does.

Feeling that he failed to contradict by means of convincing argument the references about the Georgian provenance of the St Nikolaos (Surb Nshan) Church in Tbilisi, S. Karapetyan tries to veil this, weak aspect of his work by means of the epigraphic and archival data of the post-1703 period (when the church had been long Armenized), telling about how many reconstructions it underwent, how many carts of lime and bricks were used, who were church headmen, about the number of pupils at boys’ and girls’ schools, epitaphs on the tombstones in the churchyard made in Georgian, Armenian, and Russian. Besides, here is the tombstone inscription of the Armenized Georgian Meghvinishvili (Meghvinyants -- 1843-1894) who was a vice-consul of Belgium.

I do not discuss the data as far as they belong to the later period, to the 19th c. It is a fact that the St Nikolaos the Georgian church of St Nikolaos the Wondermaker in Tbilisi was misappropriated and named Surb Nshan by Armenians. This is an act that has been forbidden by all laws and assumed as larceny of a cult monument belonging to a host country. Statutes of limitations are not applicable to his offense.

I think that it is necessary to launch an essential archeological investigation of the church and to thoroughly analyze the acquired data.

P.S. The chapter was completed when Bidzina Ivanishvili, Prime Minister of Georgia, made a statement during his visit to Armenia. He expressed his readiness to start immediately restoration and conservation of the disputed church of both sides by means of his charity foundation. This is a rather businesslike suggestion; however, we should not forget that the Armenian scholars’ approach is very strict concerning this issue. They utterly state that there has been and there is not Georgian church in Armenia and, specifically, in Lore-Tashiri. They argue that the Georgian epigraphic artifacts of Akhtala, Hnevank, Kobayr, and others, do not prove that they are Georgian as far as this is an outcome of a temporary historical influence for a certain period of time. If this is so, St Nikolaos Church in Tbilisi was Georgian from the very beginning and the Armenian epigraphic artifacts on it are an outcome of a temporary “historical influence;” therefore, the church was Georgian and is till Georgian.

My brief comment on the statement of the Prime Minister of Georgia is the following: as already noted, Armenian scholars categorically do not recognize the fact of the occurrence of Georgian churches in Armenia. I believe that the Georgian side should restrain from restoring and conserving of the disputed church in Georgia until the Ministry of Culture of Armenia issues formal permission of the restoration of Georgian churches in Lore-Tashiri.

The Georgian church of St Nikolaos the Wondermaker (Surb Nshan) in Tbilisi must not be handed over because it is remade as Armenian. Hagia Sophia was transformed into a mosque but it is a pride of the Byzantine Orthodox Christian architecture and not an artifact of the Muslim architecture.

St Nikolaos the Wondermaker Church in Tbilisi must in no way be handed over!

Author Bondo Arveladze

To be continued