Threefold translation of the body of Christ: concepts of the Eucharist and the body translated in the early modern missionary context

The study examines how early modern Jesuit missionaries translated the Eucharist—central to Christian theology and closely tied to concepts of the body—into diverse linguistic and cultural settings. Challenging traditional fidelity-centered views, the authors adopt modern translation theories to analyse cultural translation as adaptive, audience- and context-dependent practice. They posit that while orthodoxy constrained missionaries (as medical accuracy constrains physicians), translation still reshaped meanings. The research question is how textual and conceptual strategies, power relations, audiences, and contexts structured Jesuit translations of the Eucharist (including transubstantiation, real presence, and symbolic understandings) in non-European contact zones, and how these translations were later retranslated for European readers.

The article situates itself within cultural history and translation studies, drawing on Eugene Nida’s dynamic equivalence (missionary-oriented functionalism), André Lefevere’s textual and conceptual grids (context-shaped decoding and reformulation), and Lawrence Venuti’s domestication/foreignization (translation as power-laden). Prior scholarship has treated Jesuit activities as cultural translation (e.g., Rubiés, Hsia, Ditchfield), but often through European-language outputs; recent work increasingly considers texts in local languages. The authors critique postcolonial applications that presume unidirectional Western dominance, noting contexts where missionaries depended on local elites (e.g., Nobili in South India, Brébeuf in Canada). They review Catholic catechetical traditions after Trent (e.g., Canisius, Bellarmine, Roman Catechism) and regional council policies (Goa, Lima) that shaped missionary translation practices, alongside genre conventions (catechisms’ Q&A) and regional scholarship on India, China, Japan, and the Americas.

Conceptual-analytical, comparative textual study. The authors construct a ‘toolbox’ combining Nida’s dynamic equivalence (search for contextually fitting equivalents across shifting semantic fields), Lefevere’s textual and conceptual grids (genre markers, discursive framings), and Venuti’s domestication/foreignization (to trace power and integration of alterity). They apply this to Jesuit catechisms and pastoral texts in South India (Henrique Henriques, Thomas Stephens, especially Roberto Nobili’s Tamil Ñāna Upadēsam) and to selected cases from other regions (e.g., Canada, Ethiopia, Japan), as well as to European publications (Jesuit letters, Neue Welt-Bott). Sources include printed catechisms and manuals, pastoral narratives (e.g., Stephens’s Kristapurāṇa), archival manuscripts, council decrees, and edited letter collections. The analysis tracks: (1) textual grids (genres, structures like Q&A, Purāṇa form, Upadeśa lessons), (2) conceptual grids and semantic selections for Eucharist (e.g., miracle, food/nourishment, compassion), (3) strategies (transliteration vs translation), and (4) reception/power via domestication/foreignization toward local vs European audiences.

- Textual grids: Catechisms in South India often retained European post-Tridentine Q&A structures (e.g., Xavier’s Doctrina Christiana; Henriques’s Tamil translations Tambiran Vanakkam (1578) and Kiricittiyānni Vanakkam (1579) from Marcos Jorge), indicating limited domestication at the formal level. By contrast, pastoral texts allowed more adaptation: Stephens’s Kristapurāṇa used the Hindu Purāṇa verse form, and Nobili’s Ñāna Upadēsam mixed multiple grids (Upadeśa lesson structure; scholastic sententiae; Aquinas’s rational/dogmatic progression; Tamil rhetorical and grammatical markers), forming a transcultural genre. - Conceptual grids and semantic choices for ‘Eucharist’: Transliteration (e.g., Santu/Santissimo Sacramento, hosti, calix) preserved orthodoxy but impeded understanding, as noted by the 1567 Goa council’s complaint about misunderstanding Eucharistic bread. Missionaries experimented with broader, overlapping semantic fields: (a) miracle/mystery (Henriques; Jesuit letters), (b) food/nourishment via local cultic food (Stephens’s use of prasāda; later Marathi catechisms speak of ‘devaprasāda’), and (c) affective frames like compassion (Nobili’s narkaruṇai, ‘great compassion’). These choices enhanced intelligibility while managing doctrinal risk. - Translating transubstantiation/body: Direct Thomistic explanation was rare outside Europe. Stephens framed real presence with ‘divine body’ (maha pavitri cuddi) and ‘divine nature’ (Deuapanna), aligning with Hindu imaginaries of divine bodies. Nobili mapped Catholic metaphysics onto Sanskrit-Tamil concepts: gunas (qualities) for ‘accidents,’ dēva tattuvam (divine essence), amrita (divine nectar), prasāda (divine food), and Karter/Kadavul for God; he explicitly names ‘panda marramum’ (change of substance) to convey transubstantiation while preserving orthodoxy. - Audience and power: Degree of domestication differed by audience. For local audiences, formal domestication was constrained in catechisms but greater in other genres; conceptual domestication was common (prasāda, amrita, karuṇyam). For European readers, missionary reports domesticated experiences into familiar pastoral frames, rarely detailing translation struggles; small foreignizing traces (e.g., ‘Praschadam’) were included but disciplined. - Directionality matters: Missionaries translated into foreign cultures; thus domestication often meant indigenization, not Westernization. Foreignness maintained in catechisms functioned to safeguard orthodoxy rather than to ‘foreignize’ in Venuti’s sense. - Comparative cases: Brébeuf’s Wendat term atonesta (‘giving thanks’) avoided cannibalism connotations; Japanese catechisms sometimes inverted Q&A to match Buddhist pedagogic grids; logistical and cultural constraints (vegetarian contexts, wine/host availability) affected practice and translation. - Institutional regulation: Provincial councils (Goa, Lima) attempted to standardize translation, but enforcement varied; Goan decrees encouraged local languages yet retained Latin/Portuguese terminology and models. Overall: Textual forms were more resistant to domestication than conceptual mappings; food/nourishment and miracle frames traveled best, whereas full Thomistic explication of substance/accidents was selectively mediated via local philosophical categories.

The findings show cultural translation as a multi-layered process shaped by translator expertise, genre conventions, intended audience, and power relations. Applying Nida reveals missionaries’ search for dynamic equivalents within overlapping semantic fields; Lefevere’s grids illuminate why catechisms resisted formal domestication while pastoral genres admitted indigenous forms; and Venuti’s lens, adjusted for translation into foreign cultures, helps trace how domestication signaled accommodation/indigenization rather than Westernization, and how foreignness in form often protected orthodoxy. The study addresses its research question by demonstrating that the Eucharist—especially transubstantiation’s embodiment—was reframed through local concepts (prasāda, amrita, gunas, karuṇya) to achieve intelligibility without overt doctrinal compromise. It also shows that European re-translations domesticated missionary work to fundraising and edifying narratives, obscuring on-the-ground translation negotiations. These insights contribute to broader debates on transculturality by distinguishing textual vs conceptual adaptation dynamics and by highlighting directionality and audience as key determinants in cultural translation.

The Eucharist’s global travel in early modern missions privileged practices and approachable metaphors (miracle, food/nourishment) over explicit scholastic theology. Catechisms largely maintained European textual grids, while pastoral works could adopt local forms and concepts. Conceptual domestication—especially via food (prasāda) and affect (narkaruṇai)—proved effective for comprehension and acceptance, with carefully mediated mappings (e.g., gunas to explain accidents) preserving orthodoxy. Translation outcomes varied by audience: local proselytes received more conceptual domestication; European readers encountered domesticated reports with limited foreignization. The combined toolbox (Nida–Lefevere–Venuti) exposes how translator expertise, genre, power, and directionality structure cultural translation, delineating the border between the translatable and non-translatable. It also shows that domestication into target cultures could be innovative yet vulnerable to accusations of heresy (e.g., later Malabar Rites restrictions). Future research should broaden comparative analyses across regions and genres, and further trace how target communities retranslated and stabilized missionary neologisms within their own religious lexica and practices.

- Source constraints: Limited direct access to indigenous reception; target communities’ voices are largely inferred from missionary texts and later usage traces. - Scope: Focused primarily on South India with illustrative cases from other regions; not an exhaustive cross-regional study. - Genre bias: Emphasis on catechisms and pastoral texts; fewer quantitative or ethnographic data on reception and practice. - Theoretical fit: Venuti’s domestication/foreignization requires adaptation since missionaries translated into foreign cultures; implications are discussed but not empirically tested across all regions. - Historical contingencies: Later ecclesiastical rulings (e.g., Malabar Rites controversy) retroactively constrained or erased innovative local solutions, complicating assessment of long-term adoption.