Executive Summary — 1 Corinthians (English–Dogri)

Why it matters

1 Corinthians brings the Dogri Language Package established for Romans into pastoral, situational territory — factionalism, sex, marriage, idol meat, worship order, and above all the bodily resurrection (15:1-11, this curriculum’s core passage) — where Duggar Hindu devotional life supplies specific, currently-practiced, named counterparts to nearly every doctrine in play: प्रसाद at Vaishno Devi and Raghunath Mandir, बलि at Bahu Fort, दर्शन as the region’s central devotional-seeing category, and प्रेम’s prema-bhakti resonance. Unlike Romans, where the risk was often missing vocabulary, the dominant risk here is crowded semantic neighborhoods: fluent, familiar Dogri words that point at the wrong referent. Getting this letter wrong would not create ambiguity — it would make the text sound like an endorsement or echo of practices it is directly correcting.

Key findings

• 85 terms now govern Phase 2 translation: 23 inherited exactly from the Romans baseline (गॉस्पेल, ग्रेस, फेथ, साल्वेशन, गॉड, जीज़स, लॉर्ड, रिज़रेक्शन, etc.) plus 62 new terms introduced by this book.
• 20 terms are Critical risk (8 inherited + 12 new) and 30 are High risk (10 inherited + 20 new) — together 50 of 85 terms (59%) require absolute, no-deviation enforcement.
• 25 doctrines are tracked in the doctrine risk registry; 20 require mandatory human theologian review (8 Critical + 12 High), 4 require native-speaker review, and 1 is automated-only.
• The single highest-density risk cluster in the whole letter is chapters 8 and 10 (idol meat/idolatry): every key term (मूर्ति गी चढ़ाया खाणा, मूर्ति पूजा, दुष्ट आत्मा, प्रभु दा मेज़/दुष्ट आत्मां दा मेज़) names a practice the audience’s own extended families actively observe.
• The core passage (15:1-11) concentrates three distinct collision risks simultaneously: guru-parampara-style tradition language, दर्शन-style devotional seeing, and अविनाशी’s collision with eternal-ātman metaphysics — making it both the theological anchor and the single densest risk zone in the curriculum.
• Two known Jehovah’s Witnesses New World Translation proof-texts (8:6, 15:24-28) require deliberate anti-subordinationist framing.
• Two passages (7:36-38; 14:34-35) are genuinely disputed even across existing English/Hindi/Punjabi translations and must be flagged, not silently resolved.

Risks

• Idol-meat collapse into प्रसाद: the single greatest pastoral and doctrinal risk in the letter; a careless gloss could bless idolatry or, in overcorrecting, alienate converts from family food-sharing entirely.
• Love (ch.13) defaulting to bare प्यार or प्रेम: extremely high public-visibility risk since this chapter is quoted at weddings across North India, including by non-Christians, almost always with a romantic frame Paul did not intend.
• Lord’s Supper triple-collision (langar, prasad, bali): no other term in the letter requires three separate fencing statements simultaneously.
• Resurrection-appearance drift toward दर्शन: a single, easy, unconscious word choice that would quietly convert eyewitness testimony into ordinary shrine devotion.
• Headship (11:3) reheard through Dogra Rajput izzat-linked patriarchy as domination rather than Christlike self-giving order.
• Persistent Hindi/Punjabi default risk: Dogri’s thin independent Bible-translation history (BSI Dogri Bible only since 2003 Eighth Schedule inclusion) means translators under time pressure will reach for Hindi/Punjabi renderings unless actively restrained by this Language Package.

Opportunities

• Judaism, Islam, and even secular readings share Paul’s own recognition that a crucified, bodily-risen Messiah is scandalous or strange (1:23) — a built-in rhetorical bridge rather than a translation problem to solve.
• The existing dupatta/chunni head-covering custom offers a genuine, ready-made cultural bridge for 11:5-7, if carefully reframed around the passage’s Christ-centered rationale rather than assumed as self-explanatory.
• The audience’s own lived experience of gotra/biraderi factional loyalty can be turned into the illustrative warning ch.1-4 needs, rather than left as an unaddressed subtext.
• Jewish hesed and Buddhist metta offer partial, respectful conceptual bridges for teaching agapē’s selfless character without collapsing into either tradition’s full framework.

Recommended actions

1. Load assets/translation_memory.json, assets/bible_term_registry.json, and assets/doctrine_risk_registry.json (1 Corinthians) alongside their Romans baseline counterparts before any Phase 2 segment processing.
2. Route every segment in chapters 8, 10, 11, 13, and 15 to mandatory human theologian review by default, given their concentration of Critical-risk terms.
3. Confirm the BSI Dogri Bible’s settled renderings for 1 कुरिन्थियां (book name), the resurrection creed (15:3-4), and the Lordship confession (12:3) before finalizing any segment that cites them, per the cross-document consistency rule shared with Romans.
4. Brief all reviewers on the idol-meat/prasad distinction and the love/prema-bhakti distinction specifically before assigning chapters 8, 10, and 13 — these two risks account for the highest pastoral stakes in the entire curriculum.
5. Do not silently resolve 7:36-38 or 14:34-35; flag both explicitly for theologian-led interpretive-choice review.