Linguistic Gap Analysis
Linguistic Gap Analysis: Jeremiah
0. Method and Scope
For each of the seven curriculum doctrines, this analysis inventories the Arabic terms
realistically available to a translator (established Christian Arabic vocabulary,
Qur’anic/Islamic-register vocabulary, and generic MSA vocabulary), states the specific
weakness or collision risk of each, and recommends a single governing strategy
consistent with the baseline’s Critical/High/Medium/Low framework and its established
term list. Every recommended Arabic rendering below is either (a) already fixed in the
baseline translation_memory.json, (b) already fixed in the Jeremiah core glossary
(08) and bible_term_registry.json, or (c) proposed here for the first time and
flagged accordingly for Phase 2 translation-memory intake.
1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix
1.1 The New Covenant
| Candidate Arabic term | Source register | Weakness | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| العهد الجديد | Established Christian Bible tradition (also names the NT canon) | None disqualifying; the compound itself carries double duty (covenant + canon title) which is a strength, not a weakness, if taught explicitly | Adopted (per core glossary #1) |
| العهد المتجدد (“renewed covenant”) | Novel coinage | Implies repair/reissue of the same Sinai arrangement, undercutting 31:32’s explicit contrast (“not like the covenant I made with their fathers”) | Rejected |
| ميثاق جديد | Generic MSA “new pact/charter” | Loses the specific theological weight العهد carries as the fixed Bible-translation term throughout Genesis–Revelation; would fracture cross-reference consistency with Hebrews 8–10 | Rejected |
| العهد الأبدي / عهد أبدي | Established, parallel OT phrase (32:40) | None; must be taught as the same covenant restated, not a second promise | Adopted, cross-referenced |
Recommended strategy: Fix العهد الجديد as an unmovable Critical term identical to its use as the title of the NT canon. Every occurrence in Jeremiah 31:31 and every NT citation (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Heb 8:8, 8:13, 9:15, 12:24) must match verbatim. Teach عهد أبدي (32:40) as the same covenant under a different descriptive angle in the same lesson unit, never in isolation.
1.2 Judgment for Covenant Unfaithfulness and Idolatry
| Candidate Arabic term | Source register | Weakness | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| الأوثان (idols) | Shared, positive Qur’anic bridge vocabulary | Low risk; Qur’anic idol-smashing narrative (21:51-70) provides a genuine cultural bridge | Adopted |
| الزنى / الزنى الروحي (harlotry) | Islamic legal (hadd-penalty) register | زنى alone reads as a defined criminal-legal accusation, not metaphor | Adopted with mandatory qualifier — never bare, always الزنى الروحي or an explicit simile frame |
| الخيانة (backsliding) | Generic MSA “betrayal/treachery” | Slightly under-specifies the covenantal/marital nuance of מְשׁוּבָה, but this is an acceptable cost against the alternative | Adopted (forced choice — see §3.2) |
| الارتداد (backsliding, rejected) | Islamic legal/theological register (apostasy) | Carries live legal/social danger (traditional capital-penalty association) wholly absent from the Hebrew concept | PERMANENTLY FORBIDDEN |
| الهلاك التام (cherem) | Periphrastic MSA | Slightly less punchy than a single technical term, but avoids root-cognate collision | Adopted (see §3.3) |
| حرام / الحرم (cherem, rejected) | Islamic legal register, same triliteral root ح-ر-م | Would flatten irrevocable covenantal judgment into ordinary legal prohibition and import sacred-precinct resonance | FORBIDDEN |
Recommended strategy: This doctrine’s vocabulary is generally available but requires fencing rather than invention — see §3 below for the crowded-neighborhood analysis of زنى, ارتداد, and حرم specifically.
1.3 The Weeping Prophet and the Cost of Faithful Ministry
| Candidate Arabic term | Source register | Weakness | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| البكاء / النوح (weeping/lament) | Shared regional lament tradition | Low risk; positive bridge | Adopted |
| نار محبوسة في عظامي (“fire shut up in my bones,” 20:9) | Literal calque of the Hebrew idiom | No natural single-word Arabic equivalent exists — this is a genuine missing-vocabulary case | Adopted as literal calque, retained rather than paraphrased into blander “compulsion” language (see §4) |
| مؤامرة / تدبير الشر (conspiracy/plot) | Generic MSA | None disqualifying | Adopted |
| الشهيد (“martyr”) — considered for Uriah’s execution, 26:20-23 | Islamic religious-legal register (shahid = one who dies in the path of Allah/jihad) | Would import an entire theological framework (heavenly reward status, sometimes military connotation) foreign to the text, which simply reports an unjust execution | Rejected — use plain narrative vocabulary (قُتل / أُعدم), not شهيد |
Recommended strategy: Available vocabulary is largely sufficient; the one true gap (fire-in-the-bones idiom) is best handled by retained calque, not paraphrase, because paraphrase inevitably domesticates an involuntary, costly compulsion into voluntary zeal. Flag شهيد as an explicit avoid-term for this doctrine given its heavy independent doctrinal weight in Islamic thought.
1.4 False Prophets versus True Prophecy
| Candidate Arabic term | Source register | Weakness | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| نبي / نبي كاذب | Shared Qur’anic/Islamic register (نبي is Muhammad’s own defining category) | Readers may (consciously or not) measure Jeremiah’s/false prophets’ authority-testing criteria against خاتم النبيين (seal of the prophets) framing | Adopted, with explicit textual-criteria framing (predictive fulfillment, moral fruit, canonical consistency) rather than forced comparative-religion commentary |
| كلمة الرب (word of the LORD) | Established Christian Bible tradition | Must be distinguished from the Johannine “the Word” (a divine Person) — different referent, same phrase | Adopted, with disambiguation note at first use per document |
| يقول الرب (oracle formula, נְאֻם־יהוה) | Established Bible tradition | Intersects with waḥy (verbatim-dictation) theology; risk is conceptual, not lexical | Adopted, with wahy-distinction note |
| وحي (generic “revelation/inspiration”) — considered for “word of the LORD” | Islamic technical register (Qur’an’s own claimed mode of revelation) | Would suggest Jeremiah’s prophecy operates by the same mechanism as Qur’anic dictation, collapsing the “God moving a human author to speak in his own idiom” distinction the baseline requires | Rejected as a primary rendering; usable only in explanatory notes contrasting the two modes |
| رؤيا كاذبة / حلم كاذب (false vision/dream) | Established Bible tradition | Low risk; distinguishes counterfeit revelation on the text’s own terms | Adopted |
Recommended strategy: Vocabulary is available and largely safe at the lexical level; the real risk is conceptual bleed-through from wahy theology into “word of the LORD” and from Muhammad’s finality claim into “prophet.” Both risks are managed by explanatory framing rather than by seeking alternate vocabulary — no better Arabic alternatives exist, and departing from established terms (نبي, كلمة الرب) would itself create translation-memory inconsistency with the baseline’s own “prophet” entry.
1.5 God’s Sovereign Plans for His People
| Candidate Arabic term | Source register | Weakness | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| العناية الإلهية (providence) | Established Christian theological register, baseline-reused | Adequate; must stay distinct from قدر | Adopted |
| أفكار الرب / مقاصد الرب (plans, 29:11) | Generic MSA theological register | No single Arabic noun captures מַחֲשָׁבָה’s blend of “thought/intention/plan”; a compound is required | Adopted compound, with mandatory contextual anchoring to the exilic-community setting (29:4-7) against prosperity-gospel decontextualization |
| القدر (qadar) — considered for both “providence” and “plans” | Islamic theological register (one of six articles of faith) | Functions as impersonal, exhaustive fatalistic decree detached from redemptive particularity (“maktub”) | Rejected as primary term, per baseline precedent; usable only as a named contrast-concept in teaching notes |
| الفخاري / الوعاء / الطين (potter/vessel/clay, ch. 18) | Shared, positive Qur’anic bridge vocabulary (creation-from-clay imagery) | None disqualifying, provided the passage’s explicit conditionality (18:7-10) is retained in teaching | Adopted |
Recommended strategy: No missing vocabulary; the challenge is entirely conceptual fencing against qadar-style fatalism and against the popular prosperity-gospel misreading of 29:11 specifically. Both cautions must travel together in any lesson using this verse, since 29:11 is likely to be the single most quoted-out-of-context verse in the curriculum.
1.6 Individual Responsibility
| Candidate Arabic term | Source register | Weakness | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| كل واحد يموت بإثمه (31:29-30 idiom) | Established Bible-translation periphrasis | No single-word Arabic equivalent; periphrasis is unavoidable and acceptable | Adopted |
| الإثم (iniquity, avon) | Generic MSA/Qur’anic-adjacent | Must stay distinct from الخطية (sin, chet) to preserve Jeremiah’s own two-term structure at 31:34 | Adopted, paired usage rule |
| الفطرة (fitrah) — considered as a contrast-concept, not a rendering | Islamic theological register (innate primordial purity, no inherited sin) | Not a candidate translation at all, but the default background assumption readers bring to this doctrine; must be named and addressed directly in teaching notes, not silently assumed away | Flag as required contrast-concept, not a translation choice |
Recommended strategy: No vocabulary gap; the risk is entirely doctrinal-scope confusion — readers may hear 31:29-30 as confirming fitrah (no inherited guilt) rather than as Jeremiah’s specific rejection of a fatalistic proverb about the exile generation’s own agency. Every teaching unit on this doctrine must state explicitly that this text does not adjudicate the Romans 5 Adam question, and flag for theologian review whenever the two are taught together (per core glossary Section 3, item 4).
1.7 Hope of Restoration after Exile
| Candidate Arabic term | Source register | Weakness | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| إرجاع السبي / استرجاع أحوالهم (restore the fortunes) | Established Bible-translation periphrasis | Politically loaded by association with “Israel,” not by the phrase itself | Adopted, with mandatory political-neutrality framing |
| البقية (remnant) | Generic MSA/shared theological register | Risk of naive “surviving = favored” misreading; ch. 24 inverts this | Adopted, with inversion note |
| الرحمة / الحنان (compassion/mercy) | Islamic-adjacent register (Al-Ghafūr/Ar-Rahim family) | Baseline already flags الرحمة as merit-responsive in Islamic usage; here it is the correct term but the same caution must travel with it | Adopted, with grace-priority note (compassion precedes and produces repentance, not the reverse) |
| يرجع / الرجوع (return/repent, shuv) | Generic MSA, established Bible-translation choice | None disqualifying once distinguished from توبة | Adopted |
| يتوب / التوبة (return/repent, rejected) | Islamic soteriological register (human-initiated, merit-generating repentance) | Would reverse Jeremiah’s own developing emphasis (God restoring a people who cannot restore themselves, 31:18) into a self-effort framework | Rejected as primary term |
Recommended strategy: Vocabulary is available across the board; risk is entirely in political and soteriological framing, not word-availability. Restoration language must be taught as redemptive-historical, fulfilled in Christ and the ingathering of the nations, and explicitly fenced off from contemporary geopolitical claims at every occurrence in chs. 29–33.
2. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods
2.1 Genuinely Missing Vocabulary (no adequate single Arabic term exists)
These require compound phrases, periphrasis, or retained calque rather than a lexical substitute — this is a vocabulary gap, not a doctrinal collision:
| Concept | Hebrew | Gap | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|
| ”Fire shut up in my bones” | אֵשׁ עָצֻר בְּעַצְמֹתַי | No Arabic idiom conveys involuntary prophetic compulsion in one phrase | Retain literal calque: نار محبوسة في عظامي |
| ”Plans/thoughts” (intention + welfare + future, 29:11) | מַחֲשָׁבָה | No single noun spans “thought,” “intention,” and “plan” together | Compound: أفكار الرب / مقاصد الرب |
| ”Restore the fortunes” (technical reversal-of-judgment idiom) | שׁוּב שְׁבוּת | No Arabic idiom names this specific formal category | Periphrasis: إرجاع السبي / استرجاع أحوالهم |
| ”Each dies for his own iniquity” (31:29-30 proverb-negation) | אִישׁ בְּעָוֹנוֹ | No single-word equivalent for the legal-proverbial construction | Periphrasis: كل واحد يموت بإثمه |
| ”Cut a covenant” (ritual idiom) | כָּרַת בְּרִית | Arabic covenant-making vocabulary lacks the ritual “cutting” image | Retain periphrastic pairing: عقد عهدًا / قطع عهدًا (second option partially recovers the image) |
| Yhwh Tzidkenu as a compound divine-Name title | יהוה צִדְקֵנוּ | Arabic has no existing fixed liturgical title for this exact OT construction outside Bible-translation tradition | Fixed compound: الرب بِرُّنا (adopted, Critical, see §4) |
2.2 Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods Requiring Fencing
These are the inverse problem: too many available Arabic terms, each carrying a different, often theologically loaded, competing sense that must be actively excluded.
Neighborhood A — Repentance/Turning (שׁוּב)
- Candidates: يرجع/الرجوع (neutral-relational) vs. يتوب/التوبة (Islamic soteriological, human-initiated, merit-generating)
- Fence: use يرجع/الرجوع exclusively; reserve تكلم عن التوبة only in explanatory notes contrasting the two systems, never as the primary rendering.
Neighborhood B — Covenant Betrayal (מְשׁוּבָה)
- Candidates: الخيانة (generic betrayal, adopted) vs. الارتداد (Islamic apostasy, forbidden) vs. الفسق (Islamic moral transgression/defiance register, not proposed but worth naming as a further danger since it too carries independent Islamic legal-theological weight)
- Fence: الخيانة only; الارتداد and الفسق are both PERMANENTLY FORBIDDEN for this concept.
Neighborhood C — Utter Destruction (חֵרֶם)
- Candidates: الهلاك التام (periphrastic, adopted) vs. حرام/الحرم (same root, forbidden) vs. الدمار الشامل (generic “total destruction,” under-specified — loses the covenantal-devotion sense entirely, reducing cherem to ordinary military destruction)
- Fence: الهلاك التام required; حرام/الحرم forbidden; الدمار الشامل discouraged as theologically thin.
Neighborhood D — Marital/Sexual Betrayal Imagery (זָנָה)
- Candidates: الزنى الروحي (adopted, qualified) vs. bare الزنى (forbidden as standalone) vs. الخيانة الزوجية (“marital betrayal,” a softer alternative worth holding in reserve for especially sensitive teaching contexts)
- Fence: never use bare الزنى without the الروحي qualifier or an explicit simile marker (كأنها زانية / “as though she were an adulteress”); consider الخيانة الزوجية as a de-escalation option in pastoral (rather than academic/translation) contexts, flagged for native-speaker review.
Neighborhood E — Divine Decree/Plan (מַחֲשָׁבָה, כָּל אֵלֶּה עֹשֶׂה יהוה)
- Candidates: العناية الإلهية (adopted, personal/purposive) vs. القدر (Islamic fatalistic decree, forbidden as primary term) vs. تدبير الله (“God’s management/ordering,” a viable secondary term worth noting — more personal than qadar, less liturgically loaded than ‘inayah)
- Fence: العناية الإلهية primary; تدبير الله acceptable as a secondary/explanatory synonym; القدر forbidden as primary but usable as a named contrast in teaching notes.
Neighborhood F — Knowledge of God (דַּעַת / יָדַע)
- Candidates: معرفة الرب (adopted) vs. المعرفة alone (dangerously overlaps Sufi maʿrifah, elite mystical gnosis) vs. العلم (generic “knowledge/information,” under-specified — loses the relational-experiential sense entirely)
- Fence: always pair معرفة with الرب or an explicit universal-scope qualifier (“من الصغير إلى الكبير”) to block both the elite-mysticism misreading and the flattening into mere propositional information.
Neighborhood G — Prophetic Speech-Formula (נְאֻם־יהוה / דְּבַר־יהוה)
- Candidates: يقول الرب / كلمة الرب (adopted) vs. وحي (Islamic verbatim-dictation register, rejected as primary) vs. إلهام (“inspiration,” a softer generic term that risks under-claiming — could reduce Jeremiah’s oracles to mere pious inspiration rather than God’s actual spoken words)
- Fence: كلمة الرب / يقول الرب primary, taught with explicit “God moving a human author to speak in his own idiom” framing; وحي reserved for contrastive notes only; إلهام avoided as it under-claims authority.
3. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions
| Term/Concept | Decision | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Abba (Romans 8:15, cross-reference only — not native to Jeremiah) | Transliterate (أبّا) | Baseline precedent; not independently at issue in this curriculum but retained for cross-document consistency |
| Amen / Hallelujah | Transliterate (آمين / هللويا) | Established Van Dyck/NAV convention per baseline |
| YHWH Tzidkenu | Paraphrase into fixed Arabic compound, not transliterated | الرب بِرُّنا translates the Name-plus-attribute construction directly; transliterating the Hebrew (ياهوه تسدقينو) would be unintelligible and would forfeit the entire theological point that this is a meaningful, readable title, not an opaque proper name |
| Cherem | Paraphrase (الهلاك التام), not transliterated | A transliteration (خيريم) would carry zero inherited meaning for an Arabic reader and would forfeit the teaching opportunity the Hebrew concept offers; periphrasis preserves both meaning and the root-collision fence against حرام |
| Shalom / “Peace, peace” false-prophet formula (6:14, 8:11) | Translate (السلام, السلام!), not transliterate | Established term; transliteration would be redundant since Arabic already possesses a cognate word with overlapping but manageable sense — the false/true distinction is handled by context-framing, not by transliteration |
| Devar-YHWH / Ne’um-YHWH formulas | Translate (كلمة الرب / يقول الرب), not transliterate | These are recurring structural formulas meant to be read fluently hundreds of times through the book; transliteration would create an unreadable, alienating text and defeat the formula’s rhetorical function |
| ”Fire shut up in my bones” (20:9) | Calque (literal translation), not paraphrase, not transliteration | See §2.1; this is the one case in the curriculum where literal rendering outperforms both idiomatic paraphrase (which domesticates the compulsion) and transliteration (impossible for an English idiom) |
| Megillah (scroll) | Translate (الدرج), not transliterate | Common, unloaded Arabic vocabulary exists; no reason to import a foreign term |
| Proper names (Judah, Babylon, Egypt, David, etc.) | Use established Van Dyck/NAV transliterated forms (يهوذا، بابل، مصر، داود) | Per baseline convention; these are the destination language’s own settled transliteration tradition, not new decisions |
| ”Queen of Heaven” | Translate (ملكة السماء), not transliterate | Descriptive title with a direct, transparent Arabic equivalent; transliterating an ANE goddess-name (e.g., Ishtar/Astarte forms debated among scholars) would add needless obscurity with no doctrinal payoff |
General rule derived: Jeremiah’s linguistic profile favors translation/paraphrase far more than transliteration, because — unlike Romans’ handful of genuinely untranslatable Aramaic/Greek terms (Abba) — nearly every Jeremiah-specific term is a Hebrew idiom or formula for which Arabic possesses either an exact or a workable periphrastic equivalent. Transliteration should be reserved strictly for cases already fixed by the baseline (proper names, Abba, liturgical exclamations) and never introduced as a novel strategy within this curriculum.
4. Ranked List of This Curriculum’s Highest-Risk Ambiguities
Ranked by combined severity (doctrinal weight × likelihood of misreading × real-world consequence):
-
יהוה צִדְקֵנוּ / “The LORD is our righteousness” (23:6, 33:16) — Critical. The single most theologically loaded phrase in the book: the OT’s own ascription of the divine covenant Name to the promised Davidic king. Risk of being softened into “God gives the king righteousness” rather than “the king bears YHWH’s Name.” Structurally identical to the baseline’s Critical Lord/Son-of-God entries but originating in Israel’s own Scripture centuries before the NT.
-
The New Covenant / Old Covenant relationship (31:31-34, cf. 32:40) — Critical. Risk of misreading as “repaired Sinai covenant” (via mistranslation as العهد المتجدد) or as abrogation/naskh of the Law rather than its internalization; also risk of fragmenting 31:31 and 32:40 into two unrelated promises.
-
31:29-30 Individual Responsibility taught alongside Romans 5 — Critical/High. Highest risk of unintentionally conceding the fitrah (no-inherited-sin) framework if taught without explicit scope-limiting language distinguishing “rejection of a fatalistic proverb about this generation” from “a general metaphysical claim about inherited guilt.”
-
מְשׁוּבָה — backsliding/faithlessness rendered near الارتداد — Critical (real-world danger). Not a doctrinal ambiguity so much as a translator-error danger: any drift toward الارتداد in a future translation pass (e.g., a well-meaning synonym search) could expose readers to real legal/social risk in some Arabic-speaking contexts. Requires a hard, permanent, automatically-checked forbidden-substitution flag in Phase 2 tooling.
-
הֵיכָל/בַּיִת and contemporary Jerusalem/sacred-site sensitivities (ch. 7) — High. The doctrinal point (ritual without righteousness is worthless) is exegetically clear, but application in teaching materials risks being heard as commentary on present-day contested sacred sites unless explicitly historically anchored.
-
“Restore the fortunes” / Israel / Judah in chs. 29-33 — High. Highest-frequency recurring political-sensitivity risk in the curriculum (appears at minimum seven times); requires a standing disclaimer template rather than case-by-case improvisation.
-
נְאֻם־יהוה / דְּבַר־יהוה formulas vs. waḥy theology — High. Occurs roughly 175+ times; low per-occurrence risk but very high cumulative exposure if the God-speaks-through-a-human-author-in-his-own-idiom distinction is not established early and reinforced.
-
זָנָה marital/adultery imagery (ch. 2-3) — High. Risk of literal hadd-penalty misreading is severe if the qualifier or simile-marker is ever dropped in abridged teaching summaries or oral paraphrase.
-
מַחֲשָׁבָה / 29:11 “plans” verse — High. Very high popular citation frequency (arguably the most quoted single verse from Jeremiah in devotional contexts worldwide) makes decontextualized prosperity-gospel misreading a near-certainty without a standing corrective note attached to every occurrence.
-
דַּעַת / יָדַע “knowledge of God” (31:34) vs. Sufi ma’rifah — High. Subtle risk: unlike more obviously “loaded” terms, معرفة reads as innocuous MSA vocabulary, making the collision easy to miss in a quick Phase 2 pass unless flagged explicitly at every occurrence.
-
חֵרֶם root-cognate collision with حرام/الحرم — Medium-High. Lower doctrinal centrality than items above, but a translator working quickly by cognate-recognition is at genuine risk of reaching for the forbidden term reflexively.
-
מִשְׁפָּט וּצְדָקָה social-ethics pairing (22:3, 16) vs. البر’s works-checklist caution — Medium-High. Risk is subtle inversion (making social justice the ground rather than the fruit of covenant standing), easy to miss because the vocabulary itself (الحق والعدل) is uncontroversial.
-
שׁוּב “return” vs. توبة “repentance” — Medium-High. Well-managed by the fixed rendering, but any Phase 2 worker unfamiliar with the specific rationale might reach for the far more common تعبير التوبة as a “more natural-sounding” synonym; requires an explicit validation-rule entry (see recommendation below).
-
גָּלוּת/שְׁבִי “exile” and contemporary galut-theology resonance — Medium. Lower urgency than “Israel/Judah” proper but belongs in the same standing-disclaimer category.
-
שָׁלוֹם false-peace formula (6:14, 8:11) vs. baseline’s positive السلام مع الله — Medium. Contextually well-distinguished by the “Peace, peace, when there is no peace” irony already present in the text itself, but Phase 2 workers should be flagged not to apply the baseline’s positive doctrinal gloss reflexively to every السلام occurrence.
5. Recommendations for Phase 2 Tooling
- Add حرام, الحرم, الارتداد, يتوب, التوبة, وحي (as primary renderings), and القدر (as primary rendering) to an explicit secondary forbidden/flagged list in the Jeremiah-extended
translation_memory.json, parallel to the baseline’s existing forbidden-substitution list, so automated validation catches drift toward these terms without requiring a human reviewer to notice by inspection alone. - Attach a standing, reusable disclaimer template to every occurrence of “Israel,” “Judah,” “restore the fortunes,” and “exile” rather than requiring ad hoc composition each time — reduces the risk of an occurrence slipping through Phase 2 batch processing without the required political-sensitivity framing.
- Attach a standing corrective note to every occurrence of Jeremiah 29:11 specifically (not just the “plans” glossary entry generally), since this verse’s popular decontextualized use is a distinct, higher risk than the term’s general doctrinal risk rating would suggest.
- Treat items 1-4 in the ranked list (§4) as mandatory human-theologian review triggers in the Jeremiah-extended doctrine risk registry, at the same escalation tier as the baseline’s Critical Christological entries.
This analysis is a proposed extension to the Phase 1 artifact set. It should be read together with analysis/08_core_glossary.md (term inventory) and cross-checked against assets/bible_term_registry.json before Phase 2 translation-memory intake.