Linguistic Gap Analysis
06 — Linguistic Gap Analysis: Zephaniah
English → German Language Package | Curriculum: Zephaniah
Generated: per Phase 1 Step 8
Precedes: analysis/08_core_glossary.md (already drafted ahead of this step and treated as consistent input); extends translation_memory.json and bible_term_registry.json; consumed by 07_semantic_analysis.md and by Phase 2’s 12_ai_translation_requirements.md update.
Method: Every entry is checked against (a) the baseline Romans Language Package’s fixed renderings, which this document may extend but never contradict, and (b) contemporary German Bible tradition (Lutherbibel 2017, Einheitsübersetzung 2016) as the register authority.
0. Scope and Full-Book Coverage Statement
This analysis covers all three chapters of Zephaniah (1:1–18; 2:1–15; 3:1–20) in full. The core passage (3:14-17) is treated as the theological anchor for the fourth doctrine below, not as the boundary of analysis. Chapters and sub-units contributing no new vocabulary-gap material are explicitly noted as reviewed rather than silently omitted:
- 1:1-6 (superscription; opening judgment oracle; Baal/host of heaven/Milcom): covered under Doctrine 2 and the transliteration table.
- 1:7-13 (Day-of-sacrifice imagery; corrupt officials; complacency): covered under Doctrines 1 and 2.
- 1:14-18 (Day of the LORD intensified, universal-scope judgment, wealth-cannot-save): covered under Doctrine 1.
- 2:1-3 (summons to repentance; humble of the land): covered under Doctrines 2 and 3.
- 2:4-15 (five nation-oracles; pride vocabulary; remnant seed at 2:7, 9): covered under Doctrines 2 and 3. Reviewed with no additional new-vocabulary gaps beyond the pride/Hochmut consistency issue already flagged in the core glossary.
- 3:1-8 (corrupt leadership catalogue; Day of the LORD as universal indictment; pure speech promise): covered under Doctrines 1, 2, and 3.
- 3:9-13 (universal pure-speech worship; remnant description; shame reversal; one-shoulder unity): covered under Doctrines 1 and 3.
- 3:14-17 (core passage: fourfold joy command, Daughter of Zion, King of Israel apposition, mighty Savior, God as subject of joy): covered under Doctrine 4, the theological anchor.
- 3:18-20 (textually uncertain restoration; restore-the-fortunes closing formula): covered under Doctrines 1 and 3.
No chapter or major sub-unit is silently omitted. Terms already fixed in the baseline (Gott, Israel, Herr, heilig, Gerechtigkeit, Rettung, Prophet) are reused exactly per the hard rule and are analyzed here only for the new gap risk this book’s specific contexts introduce, not re-litigated from first principles.
1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix
For each of the four curriculum doctrines: the available German vocabulary inherited from the baseline and German Bible tradition, its specific weaknesses when carrying this book’s content, and the recommended translation strategy.
1.1 The Day of the Lord as Judgment and Restoration
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Available German terms | ”der Tag des HERRN” (fixed technical term, reused/extended from baseline’s lord/day_of_the_lord framework); “Zorn” (wrath); “Gericht” (judgment, court-of-law register); “Wiederherstellung” (restoration) |
| Weaknesses | (1) German lacks a single word for the doubled Hebrew intensive (“I will utterly sweep away,” 1:2-3) — the emphatic force must be carried by adverbial modification, not verb doubling, or it reads as a plain declarative. (2) The poetic catalogue of near-synonymous “day of…” phrases (1:15) risks being collapsed by translators into one generic “Tag des Zorns,” losing the rhetorical stacking that is itself part of the passage’s force in a way German expository prose does not naturally reproduce. (3) “Gericht” alone, if used loosely for “day of the LORD,” risks a purely juridical-procedural register (courtroom, Amtsgericht) that under-conveys the cosmic, world-ending scope Zephaniah intends. (4) The “day of sacrifice” reversal (1:7-8) uses ordinary sacrificial vocabulary (Opfer) with the referent inverted (the nation is the victim, not the offerer) — a crowded-neighborhood risk treated separately in §3 below. |
| Recommended strategy | Fix “der Tag des HERRN” identically at every occurrence (1:7, 8, 14, 18; 2:2-3; 3:8), always with the mandatory HERR small-caps convention. Render the 1:15 catalogue as distinct parallel phrases (Tag des Zorns / Tag der Angst und Not / Tag der Finsternis und des Dunkels) rather than one repeated phrase. Render the 1:2-3 doubled intensive with an emphatic adverb (“gänzlich,” “völlig”) rather than a plain declarative. Treat “das Opfer(mahl) des HERRN” (1:7-8) as a flagged, explicitly-glossed Critical term requiring mandatory teaching-material distinction from redemptive-sacrifice vocabulary used elsewhere in this pipeline. |
1.2 God’s Judgment on Idolatry and Complacency
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Available German terms | ”Baal,” “Milkom” (transliterated proper names); “das Heer des Himmels” (host of heaven); “Hochmut,” “Stolz,” “Überheblichkeit” (pride vocabulary); “die auf ihren Hefen Erstarrten” (wine-lees complacency); “Fürsten / Richter / Propheten / Priester” (corrupt leadership catalogue) |
| Weaknesses | (1) “Das Heer des Himmels” collides directly with the positive liturgical German title “Herr der Heerscharen” (YHWH Tseva’ot, Lord of Hosts) — same root vocabulary, opposite referent (false astral worship-objects vs. God’s own heavenly host). This is a genuine German-specific crowded-neighborhood risk with no parallel in English, where “host of heaven” and “LORD of hosts” are already visually distinct enough that the collision is milder. (2) The wine-lees metaphor (1:12) has no living German idiom equivalent — even in German wine-growing regions (Mosel, Rheingau), “auf den Hefen sitzen” is a technical winemaking term, not an idiom for spiritual apathy, so a literal rendering risks being read as merely obscure rather than theologically pointed. (3) “Prophet” and “Priester” in the corrupt-leadership catalogue (3:3-4) collide with the baseline’s normative, positive prophet doctrine entry and are also adjacent to the historically fraught precedent of Matthew 23’s woes against scribes and Pharisees, requiring the same historical-sensitivity fencing. (4) “Hochmut” risks flattening five distinct nation-oracles (Philistia, Moab/Ammon, Cush, Assyria) into one undifferentiated moralism if vocabulary is not held deliberately consistent to preserve the pride/humility structural contrast Zephaniah is building toward chapter 3’s remnant. |
| Recommended strategy | Transliterate Baal and Milkom with a brief historical-background footnote (specific Canaanite/Ammonite deities, not generic “idol” terms). Mandatory first-occurrence disambiguation note on “das Heer des Himmels” distinguishing it explicitly from “Herr der Heerscharen.” Retain “die auf ihren Hefen Erstarrten” but pair it every time with the verse’s own explanatory clause (“der HERR tut weder Gutes noch Böses”) rather than letting the metaphor stand alone. Frame the corrupt-leadership catalogue per the Matthew 23 precedent already established in this pipeline: specific, historically-anchored first-millennium office-holders, never generalized. Hold “Hochmut” consistent across all five nation-oracles. |
1.3 The Remnant of Israel
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Available German terms | ”der Rest” (fixed from Romans 11:5’s established rendering); “die Demütigen des Landes” (humble of the land); “ich werde euer Los wenden” (restore the fortunes); “die um das Fest Trauernden” (textually uncertain restoration phrase) |
| Weaknesses | (1) “Der Rest” is lexically thin in ordinary German (its default sense is “the remainder/leftover,” as in “der Rest des Kuchens”), risking a diminished or even slightly dismissive connotation unless clearly anchored to the Romans 9–11 theological usage learners may already know. (2) “Die Demütigen des Landes” risks a fully spiritualized reading (inner humility only) that loses Zephaniah’s socio-economic edge — closer to Luke’s beatitudes than to Matthew’s “poor in spirit.” (3) “Los wenden” for shuv shevut risks an impersonal fate/lottery reading (“das Los,” as in a raffle) unless personal divine agency is made explicit in the same clause. (4) “Die um das Fest Trauernden” (3:18) translates a genuinely disputed Hebrew text; presenting it with unwarranted confidence misrepresents the actual state of scholarship. |
| Recommended strategy | Fix “der Rest” without paraphrase at every remnant occurrence (2:9; 3:12-13) specifically to preserve the visible terminological bridge to Romans 11:5, flagged for mandatory theologian review given Germany’s historical sensitivity around any Israel/election-adjacent teaching. Hold both socio-economic and spiritual senses together for “die Demütigen des Landes” rather than resolving toward only one. Always pair “Los wenden” (or the fuller “das Geschick/die Gefangenschaft wenden”) with explicit personal-agency framing (“der HERR selbst wird…”). Apply the pipeline’s existing text-critical transparency-note discipline (as used for Mark 16:9-20 and the Luke textual notes) to 3:18 rather than presenting it as settled. |
1.4 God’s Joyful Love for His People (core passage anchor, 3:14-17)
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Available German terms | ”jauchze / jubelt / sei fröhlich und frohlocke” (fourfold joy command); “Tochter Zion” (Daughter of Zion); “der König Israels, der HERR” (King of Israel apposition); “ein starker Retter” (mighty Savior); “er wird sich über dir freuen mit Jubel” (LORD rejoices over you); “er wird still sein in seiner Liebe / er wird dich erneuern in seiner Liebe” (silent/renews textual fork); “er wird über dir jubeln mit lautem Singen” (LORD sings over you) |
| Weaknesses | (1) German has several near-synonymous joy-verbs (jauchzen, jubeln, frohlocken, sich freuen) but translators left unguided risk collapsing all four Hebrew joy-imperatives into one repeated “freu dich,” losing the rhetorical crescendo that opens the passage. (2) “Tochter Zion” is a beloved German Advent-chorale title (Ranke text, Handel-derived melody) drawn from the Zechariah 9:9 parallel — a genuinely positive cultural bridge, but one that risks eclipsing Zephaniah’s own specific judgment-to-restoration narrative arc beneath the more familiar Advent association. (3) “Held” (hero/warrior), the more literal rendering of gibbor, carries loaded twentieth-century German connotations (Heldentum, Kriegsheld) structurally parallel to the baseline’s own documented “Heil” caution — a real collision risk if translators default to lexical literalism over doctrinal sensitivity. (4) The joy-verb of 3:17b (yasis/sus root) risks flattening in German expository register toward a calmer “Wohlgefallen” or “Zufriedenheit,” understating the exultant, singing image and presenting a passive divine benevolence rather than active, celebratory joy — German theological prose default register is calmer than Hebrew poetry. (5) 3:17c is a genuine, well-attested Masoretic/versional textual fork (yacharish, “he will be silent” vs. yechadesh, “he will renew”) with real pastoral-tone consequences and no unanimous German tradition resolving it identically. |
| Recommended strategy | Use four distinct but consistent German joy-verbs, matching German verb choice in 3:14 (Zion’s joy) as closely as possible to the verb choice used for God’s own joy in 3:17d, so the mutuality of joy visible in the Hebrew is also visible in German. Retain “Tochter Zion” but require accompanying teaching material to explicitly ground the phrase in Zephaniah’s own narrative before any cross-reference to the Advent chorale. Mandate “ein starker Retter” over “ein Held, der rettet,” reserving “Held” for footnoted lexical explanation only. Preserve the active, exultant, singing sense in both 3:17b and 3:17d without abstracting to “Freude” or “Wohlgefallen” alone. Require a documented, non-silent theologian decision on the 3:17c textual fork before Phase 2 lock-in, rather than silently defaulting to either the Lutherbibel’s or Einheitsübersetzung’s current choice. |
2. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods
2.1 Missing Vocabulary (German lacks a natural equivalent; paraphrase or explicit glossing required)
| Hebrew feature | Gap | Why German cannot supply a direct equivalent | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Doubled intensive verb (1:2-3, “asoph asseph”) | No German grammatical doubling for emphasis | German cannot repeat a finite verb for intensification the way Biblical Hebrew can; a literal “sammeln, ich sammle” reads as a stutter, not emphasis | Emphatic adverb (“gänzlich hinwegräumen”) |
| Wine-lees idiom (1:12, “thickened on the dregs”) | No living idiom for spiritual apathy built on wine-sediment imagery | German winemaking vocabulary (“Hefe,” “auf der Hefe lagern”) is a live technical term for a deliberate, positive aging process (used positively for quality wine), the opposite valence of the Hebrew’s negative, judgment-laden metaphor | Retain literal image but mandatorily pair with the verse’s own explanatory clause; footnote the positive-in-German/negative-in-Hebrew valence mismatch explicitly |
| Stubble/chaff undertone in “gather yourselves” (2:1) | No living German idiom carrying self-deprecating stubble/chaff self-image | The Hebrew’s possible secondary wordplay (gathering like chaff, i.e., worthless material about to be burned) has no German lexical trace | Footnote only; do not force into main rendering |
| ”One shoulder” idiom (3:9, shekhem echad) | Literal body-part unity-idiom untranslatable | German has no equivalent porter/burden-bearing idiom built on “Schulter” | Render by sense (“einträchtig”) rather than literally |
| Melekh/Milkom wordplay (1:5) | Wordplay between “Milkom” and “melekh” (king) is purely Hebrew-phonological | No German cognate relationship exists between “Milkom” and “König” | Footnote the wordplay; connect forward to 3:15’s “König Israels” in teaching material |
| Bosh-root reversal (3:5 vs. 3:11) | Single Hebrew root carrying deliberately opposite valence across six verses, with no single German root flexible enough to carry both without becoming a pun | German “Scham”/“schämen” family can express either sense but not simultaneously signal the deliberate wordplay-reversal the Hebrew signals through repetition of the same root | Two distinct phrasings (“sie kennt keine Scham” / “du wirst dich nicht mehr schämen müssen”), with the structural relationship surfaced explicitly in teaching notes rather than left to the German wording alone |
2.2 Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods (German already has a strong, sometimes contradictory, association that must be fenced off)
| German term/phrase | Existing German association | Zephaniah’s actual referent | Fencing required |
|---|---|---|---|
| ”das Heer des Himmels” | Root shared with the positive liturgical divine title “Herr der Heerscharen” (YHWH Tseva’ot) | The false, idolatrously worshiped astral powers (1:5) — the opposite referent | Mandatory first-occurrence disambiguation note; never allow the phrase to stand unglossed near a “Herr der Heerscharen” reference elsewhere in curriculum material |
| ”Opfer” / “das Opfer(mahl) des HERRN” | Positive atonement-sacrifice vocabulary this pipeline will use for Christ’s self-offering (Hebrews/Colossians material) | The doomed nation as the sacrificial victim under judgment (1:7-8) — offerer and offering roles reversed from the redemptive sense | Mandatory explicit distinction in teaching material at every occurrence; never introduce this phrase without the judgment-reversal framing present in the same teaching unit |
| ”Held” | Heldentum/Kriegsheld — 20th-century German militarist and National Socialist heroic-cult connotations | A warrior-strength image applied to YHWH’s saving power (3:17a, gibbor) | Prefer “ein starker Retter”; reserve “Held” for footnoted lexical explanation only, per the same discipline as the baseline’s “Heil” caution |
| ”Tochter Zion” | Beloved German Advent chorale (Ranke/Handel), associated in the popular German devotional mind with Zechariah 9:9 and Palm Sunday/Advent expectation | Zephaniah’s own specific pre-exilic judgment-to-restoration address to personified Jerusalem (3:14) | Teaching material must establish Zephaniah’s own narrative context first, before any cross-reference to the more familiar Advent association |
| ”der Rest” | Ordinary, low-register German meaning “leftover/remainder” (der Rest des Kuchens) | The remnant doctrine’s covenant-theological “surviving, promise-inheriting core” (2:9; 3:12-13) | Must always occur with sufficient surrounding context (teaching gloss, not just the bare word) to activate the theological rather than the ordinary-leftover sense; cross-reference to Romans 11:5 required |
| ”Gerechtigkeit” | Fixed, Critical-risk, fully forensic NT sense established by the Romans baseline (Luther’s Turmerlebnis) | Here (2:3; 3:5), primarily OT covenant-faithfulness and God’s own consistent righteous character, a conceptual forerunner but not identical | Translator note required at each Zephaniah occurrence distinguishing, while still connecting to, the Romans package’s forensic sense — must not be silently equated |
| ”Geschick” (as a candidate rendering for shevut) | Risks an impersonal-fate/destiny reading, paralleling the baseline’s own documented caution about deist “Vorsehung” usage | God’s own personal, covenant-historical reversal of Israel’s fortunes (3:20) | Avoid “Geschick” alone; prefer “Los wenden” or “Gefangenschaft wenden,” always with explicit personal-agency framing |
| ”HERR” vs. “Herr” | Visually near-identical strings in running German prose | Two doctrinally distinct referents: YHWH’s proper covenant name vs. the generic Adonai/Kyrios title of lordship | Absolute typographic discipline (small capitals for the Tetragrammaton) required at every one of 30+ occurrences; no exceptions, no informal shorthand in any derivative teaching material |
| ”Fürsten / Propheten / Priester” | Positive institutional and vocational associations in ordinary and even biblical German usage | Zephaniah 3:3-4’s specifically corrupted office-holders under judgment | Explicit “these specific first-millennium office-holders, in their own historical moment” framing at every occurrence, per the Matthew 23 precedent |
3. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions
| Term | Decision | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| YHWH (Tetragrammaton) | Neither transliterate nor paraphrase — use the established German Bible-translation typographic convention: HERR (small capitals) | This is not a translation choice but an inherited German Bible-tradition convention (Lutherbibel, Einheitsübersetzung) already load-bearing for the entire target readership; deviating from it, even toward a more “accurate” transliteration like “Jahwe,” would break with universally expected German devotional reading convention |
| Baal | Transliterate (“Baal”) + footnote | Proper name with an established, stable German transliteration; no living cultic collision in German culture; paraphrasing (“ein falscher Gott”) would erase the specific historical referent Zephaniah’s audience knew |
| Milkom | Transliterate (“Milkom”) + footnote on melekh wordplay | Same rationale as Baal; the wordplay is untranslatable and must be surfaced in a note rather than forced into the rendering |
| Host of heaven (tseva hashamayim) | Paraphrase (“das Heer des Himmels”), not transliterate | No proper name to transliterate; the phrase must be translated for comprehension, but requires the mandatory disambiguation note against “Herr der Heerscharen” (see §2.2) |
| Gibbor (as applied to YHWH, 3:17) | Paraphrase (“ein starker Retter”), explicitly avoiding the more literal transliteration-adjacent “Held” | Doctrinal-sensitivity override of lexical literalism, parallel to the baseline’s own “Heil” caution; this is a deliberate register choice, not an accuracy compromise, since “starker Retter” fully carries both the strength (gibbor) and rescue (yoshia) components |
| Day of the LORD (Yom YHWH) | Fixed paraphrase-as-technical-term (“der Tag des HERRN”), never varied | Functions as a proper technical term across the whole book; must be trackable, not a live translation decision made afresh at each occurrence |
| Shuv shevut | Paraphrase, not idiom-for-idiom substitution (“das Los/die Gefangenschaft wenden”) | No single-word German equivalent exists; paraphrase must retain explicit personal divine agency (see §2.2’s Geschick caution) |
| Shekhem echad (“one shoulder”) | Paraphrase by sense (“einträchtig”), not literal translation | A literal rendering would be nonsensical to a German reader; meaning-based paraphrase is required, footnoted for the lost body-part imagery |
| Nugei mimo’ed (3:18) | Cautious paraphrase (“die um das Fest Trauernden”) with mandatory textual-uncertainty note | Genuine textual difficulty; paraphrase must be presented as an interpretive best-effort, not a settled rendering |
4. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities
Ranked by combined severity of doctrinal consequence and likelihood of translator/reviewer error, drawing on the risk tiers already established in bible_term_registry.json and doctrine_risk_registry.json conventions.
- HERR/Herr typographic collapse (Critical). The single highest-frequency risk in the entire book (30+ occurrences). A single missed small-caps rendering silently converts YHWH’s proper covenant name into a generic title, undermining the Day-of-the-LORD doctrine’s specificity throughout.
- 3:17c textual fork — “er wird still sein” vs. “er wird dich erneuern” (Critical). Not a translator error risk but a genuine unresolved textual-critical decision with major pastoral-tone consequences at the doctrinal center of the core passage; silent harmonization to either German Bible tradition’s current default, without documentation, would misrepresent the actual state of the text.
- God as subject of the joy-verbs, 3:17b/d (Critical). High risk of unconscious flattening toward a calmer expository register (“Wohlgefallen,” “Zufriedenheit”) that quietly converts active, singing divine joy into passive divine approval — the doctrinal center of “God’s Joyful Love” could be lost through register drift rather than any single mistranslated word.
- King of Israel = YHWH apposition, 3:15b (Critical). German word order or careless punctuation could obscure that “König Israels” and “der HERR” name the same referent, rather than two figures (a human king and God) — a Christologically load-bearing OT text whose apposition must be unmistakable.
- “Das Opfer(mahl) des HERRN” cross-contamination, 1:7-8 (Critical). The single greatest risk of unintentional doctrinal confusion with future redemptive-sacrifice material elsewhere in this pipeline, since the sacrificial roles (victim vs. offerer) are inverted from the positive atonement sense.
- “Das Heer des Himmels” vs. “Herr der Heerscharen” (High). A German-specific collision with no parallel severity in English; a reader encountering “Heer des Himmels” without the disambiguation note may hear an echo of the liturgically positive title precisely where the text intends its opposite.
- “Der Rest” under-signaled theological weight (High). Ordinary-language thinness of “Rest” risks the remnant doctrine reading as an afterthought (“what’s left over”) rather than the positive, promise-bearing covenant-theological category Romans 11:5 requires it to echo.
- Bosh-root reversal, 3:5 vs. 3:11 (High). Six verses apart, same root, opposite valence; if rendered without deliberate structural signaling, German readers may perceive an inconsistency rather than the intended theological reversal (shame in sin vs. deliverance from shame).
- Corrupt-leadership catalogue historical-sensitivity framing, 3:3-4 (High). Structurally identical risk profile to the Matthew 23 precedent already flagged in this pipeline; failure to apply the same anti-generalization framing here would be an inconsistency across the curriculum, not just a Zephaniah-specific gap.
- “Held” substitution risk for gibbor, 3:17a (High). A translator defaulting to lexical literalism over the established doctrinal-sensitivity override could reintroduce 20th-century militarist/heroic-cult connotations into a tender, relational verse.
- Wine-lees complacency metaphor, 1:12 (High). Real risk of the metaphor being read as a mundane character flaw (laziness) rather than the doctrinally significant practical-deist unbelief in providence the verse actually names, especially since German winemaking culture assigns the underlying image a positive valence.
- “Gerechtigkeit” OT/NT conceptual slippage, 2:3 and 3:5 (High, downgraded from the baseline’s Critical only because the OT covenant sense here does not itself carry the full Reformation-breakthrough freight — but still requires a mandatory distinguishing note). Silent equation with the Romans package’s fully forensic sense would import theological content Zephaniah’s own historical context does not yet carry, while an unglossed use might also fail to show the promised continuity.
- “Geschick” drift for shuv shevut, 3:20 (Medium-High). Risk of an impersonal-fate reading undermining the personal, historically-enacted character of God’s restoring action that closes the book.
- Tochter Zion Advent-eclipse (Medium-High). Lower doctrinal-content risk than the above but a real pedagogical risk: German readers’ strong prior association with the Advent chorale could cause Zephaniah’s own distinct argument to be skipped over rather than actively mistranslated.
- Fourfold joy-command flattening, 3:14 (Medium). Primarily a rhetorical-force risk rather than a doctrinal-content risk, but directly affects whether the passage’s crescendo — and its later mirrored fulfillment in 3:17d — is perceptible to German readers at all.
5. Summary Recommendation
No entirely new German lexical stock is required for this curriculum; every gap identified above is resolvable through (a) strict reuse of the baseline’s fixed renderings where applicable, (b) the established German Bible-translation typographic and idiomatic conventions (HERR/Herr; Tochter Zion), or (c) explicit glossing/footnoting where German lacks a natural equivalent, rather than invented neologisms. The highest-leverage single intervention available to Phase 2 is rigorous, exception-free enforcement of the HERR/Herr distinction, since it silently touches the largest number of segments and underlies nearly every other doctrine in this book. The highest-leverage single human decision required before Phase 2 lock-in is the documented resolution of the 3:17c textual fork, since no automated or native-speaker-only review tier is competent to resolve it.
This document extends, and must remain consistent with, translation_memory.json (baseline) and the Zephaniah-specific entries already recorded in bible_term_registry.json and analysis/08_core_glossary.md. All renderings recommended here are proposed for confirmation, not re-derivation, at Phase 2 lock-in.