Executive Summary: Jeremiah (English Language Package)

Why it matters

Jeremiah’s core passage — the New Covenant (31:31-34) — sits at the exact doctrinal fault line where Old Testament covenant language, New Testament fulfillment claims, and live modern denominational disagreement all converge. Because this is an English→English package, the risk isn’t foreign-language mistranslation — it’s confident, silent misreading within English itself: readers bring a ready-made (and often wrong) definition to words like “idol,” “covenant,” “heart,” “know,” and “remember,” or they import a New Testament category (“Lord”) onto an Old Testament word (“LORD”) that means something distinct. Getting this wrong doesn’t produce a comprehension gap; it produces confident error. This package exists to close that gap before Phase 2 drafting begins.

Key findings

• 75 enforced terms now sit in translation_memory.json: 24 terms inherited exactly from the Romans baseline (God, Lord, covenant, righteousness, faith, election, providence, etc.) and 51 new Jeremiah-specific terms never before catalogued in this project.
• 8 Critical-risk and 16 High-risk terms (24 of 59 full-book glossary terms) require mandatory human theologian review before publication — the largest single driver being the book’s title doctrine itself: “new covenant,” “LORD (YHWH),” “idols/other gods,” “false prophet,” and “remember no more” all carry Critical-tier false-friend, collision, or decontextualization risk.
• At the doctrine level, of 22 mapped sub-doctrines spanning all 7 curriculum doctrines and all 52 chapters: 7 are Critical risk and 8 are High risk (15 of 22, 68%) require human theologian review; 6 require native-speaker review; 1 (the closing historical narrative) requires only automated review.
• A genuinely new risk category not present in the Romans baseline — OT/NT collision risk — recurs structurally throughout the book: “LORD” (YHWH, God’s personal name) appears roughly 175 times and is easily conflated with the baseline’s “Lord” (Christ’s title), and “the LORD is our righteousness” (23:6; 33:16) is easily missed as a direct Old Testament anticipation of the baseline’s Critical-risk “imputed righteousness” doctrine.
• Jeremiah 29:11 is independently flagged as the single most commonly decontextualized verse in contemporary English-speaking Christian culture — routinely quoted as an individual, near-term guarantee, stripped of its corporate scope and 70-year delayed timeline.
• The Hebrew root shuv (“return/repent/turn”) is Critical-risk on polysemy grounds alone: the same word carries opposite moral directions (turning toward vs. away from God), recurring across nearly every chapter range in the book.
• Comparative theology work surfaced supersessionism (implying Judaism/Jewish covenant status has been nullified) as the single most recurring interfaith sensitivity across three doctrines (New Covenant, Judgment, Hope of Restoration) — a risk category the Romans baseline did not need to address.

Risks

• Highest risk: publishing content on the core passage (31:31-34) or on Jeremiah 29:11 without the mandated denominational-transparency and co-text requirements, either of which would actively reinforce the most common real-world misreadings of this book in English-speaking Christian culture.
• Structural risk: 175 recurring “declares the LORD” / “word of the LORD” formulas create a high volume of Critical-risk touchpoints (the LORD/Lord collision) that must be handled consistently across every document, not resolved ad hoc.
• Denominational risk: three separate doctrines (New Covenant, God’s Sovereign Plans, Everlasting Covenant/Assurance) all intersect the same underlying sovereignty/human-response and covenant-continuity fault lines; inconsistent handling across documents would look like editorial contradiction rather than principled transparency.
• Interfaith risk: idolatry-doctrine language and New Covenant/Israel language both carry live sensitivity (Hindu devotional practice; Jewish covenant status) requiring active fencing, not silent generalization.

Opportunities

• Jeremiah 24’s “good figs” reversal, the positive secular resonance of “restore the fortunes,” and adoption-style hope language give this curriculum genuine, teachable points of connection with contemporary readers once properly contextualized.
• The book’s raw lament genre (Jeremiah’s “confessions”) is well-positioned to meet a contemporary audience hungry for permission to bring honest, unresolved grief to God — an opportunity the Romans baseline’s more forensic register does not offer as directly.
• “The LORD is our righteousness” gives this curriculum an unusually strong, precise Old Testament bridge directly into the baseline’s Critical-risk “imputed righteousness” doctrine, strengthening cross-curriculum theological coherence.

Recommended actions

1. Enforce the Jeremiah-extension translation_memory.json and 12_ai_translation_requirements.md together with the Romans baseline files (never as a replacement) in every Phase 2 pass — pre-flight checklist load order is specified in Step 10’s output.
2. Route all 15 Critical/High-risk doctrines and 24 Critical/High-risk terms to human theologian review before any segment touching them is marked approved; route the 6 Medium-risk doctrines and 26 Medium-risk terms to native-speaker review; the single Low-risk doctrine and 9 Low-risk terms may proceed via automated review only.
3. Apply the single consistent denominational-transparency statement for the sovereignty/free-will question at all three of its recurrence points (18:1-12, 29:11, 32:40) rather than drafting three separate statements.
4. Never publish a citation of Jeremiah 29:11 without its co-text (29:7, 29:10), and never publish the core passage (31:31-34) without the mandated new-covenant denominational-range statement and the LORD/Lord collision clarification.
5. Carry the MT/LXX textual variant at 31:32 forward transparently into Phase 2 drafts rather than silently resolving it, consistent with the ambiguity-handling rule inherited from the baseline.