Guess you missed the "forget it", huh.
No, just missed what you meant by this:
I was going back pre seventh century. Basing such a broad assertion on one inscription seems fraught with potential error.
If your going to persist with your usual pedantics, relate...prove the Church of Antioch used ARABIC.
What do you mean by 1) Church of Antioch, 2) used Arabic.
For 1, I'm assuming you mean the Patriarchate, and not the city itself, because Antioch was even more a Greek enclave than Alexandria. That has less import, however, as Price and Gaddis show in their introduction to the Acts of Chalcedon, Antioch did not dominate its patriarchate (part of the reason why it lost large parts of it). I'll focus on Syria.
For 2, I'm going to assume you mean Church Fathers in Arabic (theology, histories, etc), the Bible in Arabic, and use as a Liturgical language, and not its use as a vernacular of the Faithful. The later is shown by thousands of inscriptions in the area, including those on churches.
Just a few things, we are getting ready to go camping:
As for "use Arabic," I wouldn't expect much in the way of that. Arabic, even Muslim Arabic of the Quran, shows a dominance of Greek and Syriac, much more developed civilizations at a time when we cannot speak of a seperate Arab civilazation. St. Cyprian, for instance, writes a long dogmatic letter to the Arabians, it survives in Greek, and if it were not in that I would expect it to be in Syriac. Arabic even after the rise of Islam preferred oral tradition (not necessarily the mark of lack of civilization: the Zoroastrians called the written word "dead," and instead insisted on memorization. Only centuries of decline induced them to write down their literature, like the Jews and writting down the Talmud), something the Muslims continue: when the Egyptian King produced the "critical edition" of the Quran in the 1920's, they compared reciters, not manuscripts).
To give us some dates, the caliphs attacked Greater Syria and took Damascus in 634, the battle of Yarmuk took place in 636 and sealed Syria's fate, Antioch following in 637, St. Patriarch Sophronius surrendered Jerusalem by treaty in person to the caliph 'Umar in 638.
We have fragments of an 8th century Psalter from Syria, in which has parrallel texts, the Septuagint in Greek majuscules, and the Arabic in Greek letters. You can see the text here, with parrallel Arabic script:http://books.google.com/books?id=Ri1ELsg2I_MC&pg=PA68&dq=A+Psalm+fragment+in+Greek+transcription
although we have a fair amount of bilingual Arabic-Greek material, this is the only example I know of Arabic in Greek script. This matches the practice of writing Arabic in Syriac script, dating from the 8th century. For an interesting discussion of this (and interesting links)http://bulbulovo.blogspot.com/2008/05/karshuni.html
This would seem the reaction of the Caliphate adopting Arabic as its official language, and putting distinct Muslim material in it. Suprise to some, Greek and Pahlavi continued to be used after the conquest until half a century later, and we don't have a mention of Muhammad or the Quran during the period: the caliphs had used Roman coins, which began to be minted with Christ's image, and Coptic scribes, who started writing Trinitarian formulas. Around the same time is when we get the first mention of Muhammad in Arabic sources, and the first evidence of the Quran. Arabic grammar became associated with the exposition of the Quran, but we have plenty in Arabic written by non-Muslims. There is quite a bit of material, so much that Blau (a big name in Arabic studies) produced "A Grammar of Christian Arabic based mainly on South-Palestinian Texts from the First Millennium" Most of the texts are translations, mostly slavish (something that still afflicts our texts). We do have what is called an Arabic Summa Theologica, copied in 877-8 (nearly a millenium before 1727)http://books.google.com/books?id=Ri1ELsg2I_MC&pg=PA72&dq=Summa+Theologica+Griffithhttp://books.google.com/books?id=bOSIAAAAMAAJ&q=Summa+Theologica+Griffith&dq=Summa+Theologica+Griffithhttp://books.google.com/books?id=te2Jg-RTi4YC&pg=PA16&dq=Summa+Theologica+Griffith
since the text refers to Palestine as "the West," it was written by someone in Jordan or Arabia who adopted the Arabic standard koine of the Palestinian Monestaries (ie. not that codified by the Quran commentators), although it adopts Muslim terminology in attacking it. It also shows original Arabic theological discourse.
On a collection of essays on the Arabization of ALL the Churches of the Middle East after the conquest, see "Redefining Christian Identity:Christian cultural strategies since the rise of Islam' " By Jan J. Ginkel, Hendrika Lena Murre-van den Berg, Theo Maarten van Linthttp://books.google.com/books?id=u1nM57HD6joC&source=gbs_navlinks_s
The relevence to our question here, to pre-conquest Arabic: as the above symposium discusses the well known facts that Syriac and Coptic (and for that matter the Armenian) Orthodox and the Nestorian Assyrians did compose in Arabic, but they continued their own vernacular (Syriac and Assyrian are still spoken, and Coptic only died out in the 18th century) and use their own liturgical language. Neither is true of the Arab Christians, if it was ever true, a mere 175 after the Caliphate conquered Syria and Antioch (by way of comparison, Christianity came to Rome and North Africa by 49, but Latin wouldn't be used in the Church there until Pope Victor in 189, and the first Latin father, Tertullian, didn't convert until 198 and didn't write in Latin until later (his first works were in Greek), and then in Africa (whence Victor came)). That would of course make sense in view of the dynamics: the Orthodox Greeks fled, the Orthodox Syriacs already gravitated to the Church of St. Severus or had been drawn to the Nestorians, the remaining Syriac speakers ended up as Monothelite Maronites, or were as Mardaites were taken by treaty into the Empire (in contrast, Arab Christian tribes, such as Iyad, who fled into the empire were forced back into the caliphate, per the treaty demands of the caliphs with the Emperor). The only Orthodox Chalcedonian faithful left in the Patriarchate of Antioch (and nearly so in Jerusalem) were the Arabs. And since we have plenty of documentation of Arab Christians before the conquest in Greater Syria, it stands to reason why Antioch became Arabic speaking so fast is that much of its Faithful were Arabophone to begin with (compare the Orthodox Karamanlis who speak Turkish but write it in Greek letters: the heavy element of Arabic in their language tells me that they are Christianized Turks rather than Turkified Greeks. Also the proliferation of Armenian ecclesiastical writing after the creation of the Armenian alphabet: though using Greek and Syriac as their literary medium prior, the Armenians were Armenian Armenian speakers).
These Arabs produced their first Arabic Father (I don't count St. John of Damascus, born Sarjiyuus ManSuur as he wrote in Greek), St. John's disciple Theodore (or Thiyuudhuuruus) Abu Qurrah: born c. 750 in Edessa, he served as Chalcedonian bishop of Harran (785-829), wrote several treatises in Arabic, some of which were translated in Greek. Deposed by Patriarch Theodoret of Antioch, he was restored by the succeeding Patriarch Job of Antioch (799-, who translated Aristotle into Arabic. The Syriac chroniclers note that Theodore "debated the Sarcens, for he spoke and "got into a converstation with [the caliph] Ma'mun. There was a great debate between them on the Faith of the Christians." Deposed, he went to Jerusalem, where he composed treatises in Arabic, translated into Greek for the Armenians. The Miaphysite writers accuse him of travelling from Alexandria to Armenia, spreading the teaching of St. Maximus the Confessor. His writings show a grasp of Chalcedonian (i.e. not Miaphysite Syriac) theology.http://books.google.com/books?id=LT5OUMOIBB0C&printsec=frontcover&vq=Theodoret&source=gbs_navlinks_s
This wasn't confined to Syria: A tri-lingual psalter, pre 1153, produced in Sicily has Latin, Greek and Arabic in parrallel rows. The Arabic contains the Melkite (in the pre 1700 sense of the word text) and is also interesting in that the Pslams are numbered in the Arabic numberals, i.e. the place marked system we (Arabs and Europeans) use today (such numerals were usually confined to scientific works): http://www.qantara-med.org/qantara4/public/show_document.php?do_id=1132&lang=en
It is to be remembered that George of Antioch, his native city, was the first admiral who took Roger's forces to the walls of Constantinople itself, founded the beautiful Orthodox Churches in Sicily.
Of course, much of the Armaic speakers found their way into the Orthodox Church of Antioch (and Jerusalem) Matthew Black published "A Christian Palestinian Syriac Horologion" of 1187/8, which is in Syriac with phrases like the Kyrie (i.e. ones that are often untranslated in liturgies, e.g. Latin, Slavonic, Coptic and Syriac) in Arabic, with parts in Arabic, e.g. a large part in Arabic which is introduced in Syriac "the following are the correct troparia according to the Arabs and Greeks,[then switching to Arabic in Syriac letters, Garshuni] 'Behold the Bridegroom comes at midnight, and blessed is the servant..." There are vestiges of Monotheletism in the hymns, which have been adapted to Orthodoxy, and althought the services are Melkite, they show differences from the corresponding Greek services.http://books.google.com/books?id=kbA4AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0
the existence of Cypriot Maronite Arabic, an archaic dialect vestige from the time of the Crusades, also points to the Arabization of the Maronites which contrasts to the Arabophone Melkites.
That will have to do for now.