Executive Summary — 2 Peter (English → Dogri)

Why it matters

2 Peter carries a heavier concentration of high-stakes doctrinal vocabulary per chapter than Romans did for this same language pair — and, unlike Romans, almost none of it has a settled prior Dogri rendering to anchor against. Its core passage (1:16-21) fuses apostolic eyewitness testimony with the doctrine of Scripture’s inspiration, and the letter as a whole activates a different slice of the Duggar/Dogra Hindu religious landscape than Romans did: not primarily the mannat vow-economy or avatar-incarnation risk (though the latter recurs sharply for Christ’s return), but Advaita ontology, Vaishnava end-times expectation, and Puranic cyclical cosmology. Getting this book wrong would not just blur one doctrine — it would let a Dogri reader map 2 Peter’s entire eschatology onto an existing, prestigious local framework (Kalki-avatar, pralaya) without the translation ever “saying” anything false on its own.

Key findings

• Five Critical syncretism clusters, not one. Divine nature (1:4), Christ’s return (1:16, 3:4), the Day of the Lord/new creation (3:5-13), Scripture’s inspiration vs. oracular possession (1:21), and the apostasy warning (2:20-22) each require mandatory theologian sign-off and a standing teaching note, not just a careful word choice.
• 22 terms inherited exactly from the Romans baseline (God, Lord, Jesus, Messiah, Father, Son of God, Holy Spirit, holy, apostle, faith, righteousness, grace, peace, salvation, calling, election, kingdom of God, sin, power of God, glory, prophecy, prophet) — no deviation permitted; 51 new terms introduced by this book’s distinct vocabulary, seeded into assets/translation_memory.json for the first time.
• The single highest-risk phrase in the entire book is 2 Peter 1:4 (“partakers of the divine nature”) — closer to a live, prestigious local theological framework (Advaita Vedānta’s ātman=Brahman) than anything flagged in Romans.
• The second-highest risk is 1:16/3:4’s παρουσία (“Christ’s coming”) because of the Dogra-patronized Raghunath Mandir’s active Kalki-avatar eschatological expectation — a genuinely futurist, popularly known belief, not a dormant myth.
• γνῶσις vs. ἐπίγνωσις is a standing, book-wide precision risk: Dogri (like Hindi) has no lexical pair mirroring this Greek distinction, so every occurrence of English “knowledge” (nine-plus times across the letter) requires a disambiguation check, not just the obviously loaded ones.

Risks

• Doctrine-registry tally: of 19 tracked doctrines, 9 are Critical and 8 are High risk — 17 of 19 require human theologian review; only 1 doctrine is automated-review-only.
• Term-registry tally: of the terms fixed in assets/bible_term_registry.json, approximately 23 are Critical-risk and 27 are High-risk — a substantially heavier Critical/High load than Romans carried per chapter, concentrated especially in chapters 1 and 3.
• Structural risk, not just lexical risk: several of this book’s worst failure modes (pralaya, Kalki-avatar, ātman=Brahman) succeed even when every individual word choice looks defensible, because the underlying shape of the doctrine (a future world-restoring divine arrival; an ontological merger with the divine; a cyclical cosmic renewal) already exists, fully formed, in the target culture. Word-level QA alone will not catch this; every Critical-tier segment needs an explicit accompanying teaching note, not just a vetted term.
• Circulating-material risk: Watchtower Society (Jehovah’s Witnesses) literature specifically leans on 2 Peter 1:4 for a non-Trinitarian reading, and is in active Hindi/Punjabi circulation in the Jammu region; guru-Christology gospel tracts and bhagat/medium-possession-adjacent charismatic tract vocabulary are also documented in-region and must not be echoed.

Opportunities

• Because 2 Peter has no settled BSI Dogri precedent for most of its distinctive vocabulary, this curriculum has a rare chance to set the standard Dogri theological vocabulary for divine nature, Christ’s return, and the Day of the Lord — rather than inheriting and correcting an existing imprecise rendering, as Romans sometimes had to.
• The coined gap-fill compound पूरी पछान for ἐπίγνωσις is a genuine linguistic contribution (Dogri, like Hindi, otherwise has no way to distinguish relational personal knowing from philosophical/cognitive knowledge) and should be proposed for adoption beyond this curriculum.
• Chapters 2 and 3’s polemical and pastoral register shifts, if preserved faithfully, give this curriculum unusually strong material for teaching discernment and eschatological hope side by side — a natural strength for a first-generation Dogri Christian-education curriculum.

Recommended actions

1. Route every segment touching 1:4, 1:16, 3:4, 3:5-13, 1:21, and 2:20-22 to human theologian review before Phase 2 sign-off, with the mandatory teaching notes specified in analysis/12_ai_translation_requirements.md attached, not optional.
2. Load assets/translation_memory.json (2 Peter) together with the Romans baseline file for every Phase 2 session; never allow a 2 Peter worker to default to a fluent Hindi Christian gloss for an unprecedented term.
3. Apply the ἐπίγνωσις/γνῶσις disambiguation check to every occurrence of “knowledge” in the letter, not only the doctrinally obvious ones, per the standing ambiguity flag in analysis/06_linguistic_gap_analysis.md §5.
4. Confirm the {DOGRI_VERSION_ID} YouVersion placeholder against the BSI Dogri Bible (or project leadership’s designated edition) before any external publication of hyperlinked Scripture references.
5. Brief all assigned theologian and native-speaker reviewers on the five comparative-theology clusters in analysis/04_comparative_theology.md (Advaita ātman=Brahman, Kalki-avatar, pralaya, guru-veneration, narak-as-rebirth-stage) before they begin review, since these are the actual failure modes word-level QA will not catch on its own.