Whether you approach this question from the Greek or Hebrew side, the result supports the notion of the Real Presence. When Paul quotes Jesus as saying eis ten emen anamnesin, he understands the meaning both in Greek and Hebrew senses. When Jesus said, "do this eis ten emen anamensin," he was not saying to simply remember him. He was telling his twelve apostles to perform the same actions that he did in order to bring the reality of him back to this world.
You argument refutes itself. The Israelites, when celebrating the Passover, certainly did not understand themselves to be actually participating in the event again. They knew that the references to keeping the Passover were symbolic.
Further, your argument for zikrown and anamnesis is wrong. Neither of them has the connotation of "participation" in an event again, at least not beyond that of mental recollection with a view towards identification with those who went through the original event. That is simply something that Catholicism tries to "read into" the issue after the fact. But it has no basis in the actual philological, contextual, or lexical meanings of either word, as they are used in Scripture.
The "Real Presence" is emphatically NOT supported by these texts.
How do you know that the author of these words did not intend this meaning? IF the traditional view of the Eucharist was already existent in the Church at the time, then he would have intended it so. It is a liturgical formula. Very likely the Gospel writers and Paul simply lifted it from the liturgy. So —my question—how do you know they did NOT, and why do you assume they you know better than I what he intended?
Writers approriate words and give them new connotations. The term substance was given new meaning by the Church beginning with the Church councils. —was “invented,” as opponents would say, a non-Scriptural term, in order to uphold was was presented as the traditional view of Jesus as God.
OT = types and shadows
NT = Jesus fulfills the OT, the need for types and shadows is removed!!