[annalex]

You're good!

It is Jerome who is good. It is not the first time I notice that Young's is not of great help.

the difference, Alex, between "soma" (body) here and "sarx" (flesh) elsewhere.

Yes. In the synoptic gospels and accordingly in St. Paul the Eucharist is actually happening (mutatis mutandis), and of course it is the entire Christ that is present, body, blood, soul, and divinity, in the eucharistic elements. In John 6, however, the dispute is on the Jews' turf so to say: their problem is with "sarx" (John 6:51-53); had Christ told them anything less startling than that, the opportunity to clarify would have been lost, -- and Christ did not want it to be lost (v 61/62).

[Kolokotronis]

"In the synoptic gospels and accordingly in St. Paul the Eucharist is actually happening (mutatis mutandis), and of course it is the entire Christ that is present, body, blood, soul, and divinity, in the eucharistic elements. In John 6, however, the dispute is on the Jews' turf so to say: their problem is with "sarx" (John 6:51-53); had Christ told them anything less startling than that, the opportunity to clarify would have been lost, -- and Christ did not want it to be lost (v 61/62)." Indeed. But the word "σαρχ" has various shades, even differences, of meaning depending on the context. At least it did as used the +Athanasius where sometimes, depending on context and even verb form, it can mean the exact same thing as "σομα". For this thread the differences are too arcane to bother with much, but if we were to get into Protestant atonement theory, the distinctions can become rather more important. Fr. George Dragas, for my money the finest Orthodox theologian in America, wrote extensively on this.