«Քրիստոսի եղբայրները»

The article, published without an author's name in issue No. 2 (17), is devoted to the process by which the Georgian Orthodox Church has appropriated the 15th-century Armenian church of Norashen Surb Astvatsatsin in Tbilisi, and to the broader problem of the systematic destruction of Armenian cultural heritage in Georgia.

Introduction and Subject of Analysis
The starting point of the publication is what the author describes as a new, "decisive" stage in the history of the Norashen church — closed during the Soviet years and still not returned to the Armenian Apostolic Church. The author reconstructs the chronology of the destruction of material evidence of the church's Armenian identity:

the destruction of the altar and the replacement of doors bearing Armenian epigraphy in the 1990s;
the effacement of wall inscriptions by the master Petros commemorating the 1650 reconstruction of the dome;
damage to khachkars and 19th-century frescoes of the Hovnatanian school;
the installation of Georgian gravestones near the church walls (2005) and the destruction of Armenian inscriptions on tombstones on the initiative of Father Tariel;
the chiseling off of the Armenian inscription at the central entrance (2006);
the construction of a fence bearing Georgian Orthodox symbolism (since 2007) with the aim of initiating Orthodox services in the church.

Mechanism of Appropriation
The author points to the institutional underpinnings of these events: formally, the actions are presented as the personal initiative of an individual clergyman, but in the author's view, such an act would be inconceivable without the blessing of the higher hierarchs of the Georgian Orthodox Church. The key instrument of appropriation is identified as the legal structure of the Georgian state, under which only the Georgian Orthodox Church holds official status, thereby turning Armenian churches into "ownerless property" from a formal-legal standpoint.

Generalizing Thesis
The case of Norashen is examined not as an isolated episode but as an illustrative example of a broader practice of erasing Armenian traces in Georgia. The author emphasizes that responsibility lies not only with state authorities but also with a significant part of the clergy and Georgian society, which, in his words, treats the Armenian community of Georgia as a defenseless victim whose heritage can be appropriated with impunity. Particular attention is drawn to the position of the Tbilisi intelligentsia and the city's native inhabitants, who, knowing the true ownership of the church, prefer to silently ignore the fact of its appropriation.

The article's key conclusion is that the fate of the Norashen church symbolizes the systemic and consistent nature of the erosion of Armenian cultural presence in Georgia, driven by a combination of legal loopholes, institutional support, and societal indifference.