The Question of the Authenticity of a Note by Euthymius of Mount Athos on the Eucharistic Liturgies

Abstract

In the early 20th century, K. Kekelidze disclosed to the public a piece of correspondence between Euthymius of Mount Athos and an unknown presbyter, Theodoros of St. Saba. According to this source, the Liturgy of St. James had fallen into disuse because of its length, and Christians were choosing the liturgies of John Chrysostom and Basil the Great (during Lent) for their brevity. However, according to Euthymius, it was also possible to use the liturgies of St. James and of St. Peter besides those of Chrysostom and Basil. There are three versions of this letter: the first is contained in ms. Ath 79 (11th century), at the Library of the Iviron Monastery; the second is found in ms. A 737 (13th century) at the Georgian National Centre of Manuscripts; the third, surviving in ms. A 450 (17th century), was used by Kekelidze. It is likewise kept at the Georgian National Centre of Manuscripts. The question of the authenticity of Euthymius’ response regarding the liturgies arises from the data related to these manuscripts. Recent liturgical studies have shown that: 1) The theory of the abbreviation of the liturgies is inconsistent. 2) In the Byzantine Empire, the prevalence of Chrysostom's formulary over Basil's formulary is seen only around the 11th century, when the celebration of Basil’s Liturgy was limited to Lent Sundays. 3) The process of Byzantinization, which involves the replacement of the Hagiopolitan formulary (James) with the Constantinopolitan formularies (Chrysostom and Basil) in Georgia, lasted almost the entire 11th century. In view of the above, it seems impossible for a tenth-century author to deal with all the liturgical challenges of the following centuries. Comparing the content of the manuscripts with the modern study of oriental liturgies, we can assume that the famous note on the Eucharistic formularies of A 450 is a later interpolation.