"The Gate of Paradise" by Sulkhan-Saba Orbeliani is a dogmatic composition in which the main dogmas of the Christian faith are presented in the form of the dialogue, question-and-answer and is intended for the catechization of children and uneducated monks.

Ivane Lolashvili studied the textological problematics of the composition. The researcher identified 21 manuscripts containing the text [Lolashvili, 1959: 105-106] and singled out four redactions, which were marked with the appropriate letters:

• Redaction A  – Nikoloz Chachikashvili's redaction (S-2951; 1790) 
• Redaction B – The autographic redaction (A-303; 1701) 
• Redaction E  – Nikoloz Orbeliani’s redaction (H-581; 1725-1729)
• Redaction T  – Vakhushti Batonishvili’s redaction (H-108; 1750)

It is significant that the differences between the redactions have the dogmatic basis¹: Redaction B expresses the Catholic position on the origin of the Holy Spirit and the supremacy of the Pope. Redactions E and T show the Orthodox dogmatic position and Redaction A is "denominationally neutral"².

The table below presents the main differences between the redactions.

N1

The starting point of  four main redactions of the composition is Redaction B. As a result of its edition, emerged Redactions E and T. According to Ivane Lolashvili, Redaction A  was also created by Saba. However, the comparison of the texts of Redactions A and B shows that most probably, Chachikashvili's version (A), like the others, should be a result of a thorough reworking of the autographic redaction (B).

Another researcher of Sulkhan-Saba Orbeliani's literary legacy, Merab Ghaghanidze, in one of his articles writes about "The Gate of Paradise": "Not so long ago, ..., it was suggested that there might be one more version, the fifth redaction, of "The Gate of Paradise", ... which was created by Mzetchabuk Orbeliani ...   the fact is that this possible unknown redaction of "The Gate of Paradise", which is placed in the manuscript that was not taken into account during  the research of the composition, has not become a subject of a special research (National Center of Manuscripts, A-627). The same can be said about the relation of this redaction with the already known redactions"⁵ [Ghaghanidze, 2009: 147]. Ghaghanidze relied on Ekvtime Kotchlamazashvili's note about the existence of Mzetchabuk Orbeliani’s text in A-627 [Kotchlamazashvili... 1999: 162].

The aim of the research is to determine the relationship between the existing redactions and the text presented in the manuscript (A-627), which was not taken into account during the previous textological studies. Empirical (transcription of the handwritten text), comparative (research of the interrelation of the redactions), analysis and synthesis methods are used for this purpose.

A-627 is a collection of religious compositions that dates back to 1758-1760. It was rewritten in Mkhedruli by Mzhechabuk Orbeliani.

It is interesting, why this manuscript was not considered in Ivane Lolashvili's fundamental research. It is conceivable that the reason should be the fact that the Georgian description of the part of the manuscripts of Fund A has not been published. However, it should also be said that the Russian description of these manuscripts was published by Tedo Jordania⁶ in 1902, i.e. 57 years before the publication of Ivane Lolashvili's monograph. It also includes A-627. It seems that Ivane Lolashvili was not familiar with this work. Otherwise, it is inexplicable why this manuscript was not considered along with 21 other manuscripts.

The will attached to the manuscript presents the following:

“This book of faith was written by my uncle Saba. When I, Mzetchabuk Orbeliani, saw that it was written according to the new doctrine, I worked and changed it (as far as my ignorant mind enabled me to do) according to the right faith: I created the right doctrine, removed the one full of temptation and collected the doctrine saving from the hostile”.

It should be noted that this is the first case, when the scribe/editor of the composition admits in his will that the text was reworked by him and Saba did not deal with it. From this we learn that Mzetchabuk Orbeliani carried out the editorial work and cleaned the text from the provisions against the "right faith", as he says, from "temptations"  -   he changed "the new doctrine" according to the right faith, threw away “temptation” and left the "right doctrine".

It is interesting, which changes were made in the text of the composition and which redactions were used by Mzetchabuk Orbeliani.

The following tasks were carried out for determining the above-mentioned:

1. We identified and compared the articles containing the redactional differences in Mzetchabuk’s version and in the existing redactions. As a result, it was confirmed that Mzetchabuk’s text was corrected from the orthodox viewpoint;

2. We also compared the text presented in A-627 with the other redactions (E and T) that were corrected from the orthodox viewpoint;

3. The absence of the polemic against the dogma of papal supremacy in Mzetchabuk’s version unequivocally revealed the difference between it and Vakhushti Batonishvili's redaction (T). For this reason, we elaborately compared the text of A-627 with Redaction E;

4. The comparison of Mzetchabuk’s text with Redaction E revealed that the main dogmatic issues are resolved similarly: on the one hand, the proceeding of the Holy Spirit from the Father is emphasized; on the other hand, the articles of obedience to the Pope of Rome are removed and replaced by the preaching of obedience to four patriarchs.

The table below (N2) presents the parallel places from the versions of Nikoloz Orbeliani (E) and Mzetchabuk Orbeliani.

N2

Attention should be paid to the 2nd article of the table, which shows the interesting picture.  Probably, this article was not accidentally deleted in Redaction E, because it contains the Catholic dogma of the proceeding of the Holy Spirit. The article mentions figuratively the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit: "the wisdom proceeds from the mind and the word proceeds from the mind and the wisdom" ("mind" is the Father, "wisdom" is the Son and "word" is the Holy Spirit. Accordingly, the Son proceeds from the Father, while the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son). In Mzetchabuk’s version, this place is corrected from the orthodox point of view: "The word proceeds from the mind and the spirit proceeds from the mind" (i.e. the Son proceeds from the Father and the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Father).

Additionally, on the basis of the comparison of Mzetchabuk’s version and Redaction E, it was found out that Mzetchabuk could benefit from Nikoloz Orbeliani’s redaction (along with Redaction B). This is confirmed by those passages of the text that follow the text of Redaction E after turning from Redaction B. For example, in the passage, which presets the discussion of seven mysteries, Redaction E shows some differences. In particular, initially, like Redaction B, it names the order of seven mysteries. However, while explaining them, for some reason, it changes the places of several mysteries and violates the order presented in Redaction B (for example, the fifth mystery names the blessing of the priest, while the fifth in order is the consecration of oil in Redaction B; the sixth mystery names the marriage, while there is the priest's consecration in this place in Redaction B; the seventh sacrament is called the consecration of oil of the sick, when in B there is the marriage). The order of the mysteries in Mzetchabuk’s text exactly matches the order given in Redaction E. Obviously, we cannot attribute this to a simple coincidence, because it is impossible for these types of changes to occur in both texts independently.

However, quite rarely, there are opposite cases when Mzetchabuk’s text supports Redaction B (not E). In any case, the above-mentioned supports the assumption that the text of A-627 uses Redaction E in addition to Redaction B.

The following question arises: if Mzetchabuk Orbeliani had the corrected Redaction E while correcting B, why did he mention in his will that he "had worked hard" in order to correct Saba’s text?

It should be taken into account that none of the authors of the wills of other redactions tell the truth about their editorial activities. According to their wills, it turns out that the author of all the versions is Sulkhan-Saba. Obviously, it is not true. Mzetchabuk created his version by compiling two redactions. His version has the certain linguistic features. The text shows the tendency of modernization of the archaic linguistic forms and simplification of the syntactic constructions. Despite this fact, the forms characterizing the old Georgian language dominate in the entire text.

Finally, the main conclusions of the study can be presented in the following way:

• Mzetchabuk Orbeliani’s version of "The Gate of Paradise" is the only text in whose will the scribe/editor admits that he modified and "corrected" the work of Sulkhan-Saba (in all other cases, the authors of the wills claim that the texts were written by Sulkhan-Saba); 
• The text presented in A-627 was corrected from the orthodox point of view, because the main issues were written according to the orthodox dogmatic position. Moreover, this text is the closest to Nikoloz Orbeliani's redaction E and partially differs from other redactions; 
• On the basis of the comparison of the text of A-627 and Redactions B and E, it becomes clear that Mzetchabuk Orbeliani should have benefited from both autographic (B) and Nikoloz Orbeliani's (E) redactions; 
• In relation to Redaction E, the text does not provide a conceptual difference that can enable us to consider it as an independent redaction.

[1]It means dogmas about the coming of the Holy Spirit and the supremacy of the Pope. As is known, Orthodoxy recognizes the emanation of the Holy Spirit from the Father, while Catholicism believes that it emanates from the Father and the Son. In addition, according to Catholicism, the Pope is Christ's successor on the earth and his only successor. For this reason, he is infallible in ecclesiastical and moral matters. This is not recognized by Orthodoxy.

[2]The term of Ivane Lolashvili

[3]Confessor

[4]Child

[5]The emphasis belongs to the author of the article.

[6]See: Описание рукописей Тифлисского церковного музея карталино-кахетинского духовенства, составленное Ф. Д. Жордания, Кн. 2, Церк. музей, N9, Тифлис, 1902.