ON THE MATTER OF TERM BAIOBA

Abstract

In the Kartvelian languages, two lexemes — baioba and bzoba — are found that signify the feast commemorating Christ›s entry into Jerusalem. Both terms raise questions; clarification is required regarding the connection between the feast and either of the terms, or what caused the establishment of the two distinct word forms in Megrelian and Svan (the first term), as well as in the common ecclesiastical domain (the second term). It is worth noting that the term baioba is preferred in some Gospel manuscripts and liturgical texts. Additionally, it is noteworthy that the Agapes of the Cross Monastery in Jerusalem use the term baioba rather than bzoba. As early as the 11th-13th centuries, if not earlier, the term have had a conventional form, with baiaoba appears to  bzoba not yet surpassing it. Otherwise, the copyist of the Agape, the translator, or the scribe of the Gospels would have written bzoba instead of baioba. The feast›s name, baioba, appears to have existed centuries before the term bzoba was coined. This fact determines the viability of the term in modern Megrelian and Svan. For comparison, one could cite the terms like tanapa, p’ičvani, which allegedly derived from sermons by Andrew the First-Called and Simon the Zealot (or Simon the Canaanite) and originated at least three centuries before the creation of the common ecclesiastical terms aġdgoma Easter) and how aġdgoma and marḥva (fasting). This illustrates marḥva forms could not eliminate preexisting terms. A similar conclusion can be drawn regarding the relationship between the terms baioba and bzoba.