Linguistic Gap Analysis
Linguistic Gap Analysis — 1 Corinthians | English → Gujarati
Purpose
This analysis identifies where Gujarati’s existing religious vocabulary is (a) simply absent for a doctrine 1 Corinthians requires, (b) present but crowded by Vaishnav/bhakti, Jain, or Shakti-devotional usage such that it must be fenced with translator notes and consistent glossary discipline, or (c) borderline, requiring a considered transliteration-vs-paraphrase decision. It closes with a ranked list of the letter’s highest-risk ambiguities for Phase 2 routing.
Three collision frameworks are tracked throughout, matching the Romans baseline:
- VB — Vaishnav/bhakti devotionalism (Dwarka-centered Krishna devotion, guru-bhakti, prem-bhakti poetics)
- JN — Jain Three Jewels / karma / tapa / moksha / Tirthankara framework
- SK — Shakti/mother-goddess devotion (e.g., Ambaji)
1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix
| Doctrine | Available Gujarati Term(s) | Weaknesses / Collision Risk | Recommended Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resurrection of Christ and Believers | પુનરુત્થાન (established baseline) | Adjacent પુનર્જન્મ (rebirth) is a household word from both Hindu and Jain frameworks; hearers may auto-correct પુનરુત્થાન toward it mentally even when the word itself is not used. 1 Cor 15 additionally introduces new sub-vocabulary (સ્પિરિચ્યુઅલ/નૈસર્ગિક શરીર, અવિનાશી, અમરત્વ) each independently collision-prone. | Retain પુનરુત્થાન absolutely (Critical, no exceptions). Build a companion sub-vocabulary set (§2 below) specifically fenced against soul-immortality and cyclical-rebirth readings. Mandatory translator notes at every ch.15 occurrence of “imperishable,” “immortality,” and the seed metaphor. |
| Christian Unity versus Factionalism | ભાગલા/ફૂટ (division), તકરાર (strife), એકતા (unity, not yet in registry) | No true collision risk — Gujarati has no competing sacred-unity concept that intrudes here. Main risk is register drift toward everyday political/social “ફૂટ” (party-splitting) language that could flatten the theological weight of a divided church. | Low-fence term. Pair ભાગલા/ફૂટ consistently with મંડળીમાં (“within the church”) to keep the ecclesial referent explicit. Add એકતા (unity) as a [NEW] Medium-risk term to registry for chs. 1, 3, 12. |
| The Cross as Wisdom and Power | ક્રૂસ (cross), ડહાપણ (wisdom), પરમેશ્વરનું સામર્થ્ય (power of God, baseline reuse) | ડહાપણ sits directly adjacent to જ્ઞાન, which is a loaded technical term in both Jain samyak-jñāna (Three Jewels) and Hindu jñāna-yoga soteriology — self-attained liberating insight. ક્રૂસ itself is doctrinally safe (no native equivalent exists to collide with) but the paradox of “weakness as power” cuts against both Vaishnav triumphalist-avatar expectation and Jain ahimsa-based discomfort with valorized suffering. | Keep ડહાપણ, never જ્ઞાન, for “wisdom of God.” Retain ક્રૂસ as a fixed transliteration-anchored term (see §4). Translator note required at every “wisdom of God vs. wisdom of the world” contrast (1:18-25; 2:1-16; 3:18-20) explicitly naming the self-attained-insight contrast being rejected. |
| Church Discipline and Holiness | પવિત્ર/પવિત્રીકરણ (baseline), વ્યભિચાર (sexual immorality), શેતાનને સોંપવો (deliver to Satan), ખમીર (leaven) | પવિત્રીકરણ is well-fenced already from the baseline (vs. Jain tapa). New risk: શેતાનને સોંપવો could be misread through the lens of Gujarati folk-curse practice (jādū-ṭonā, occult exorcism), which is a live popular-religious category distinct from formal ecclesial discipline. | Frame શેતાનને સોંપવો consistently as a solemn corrective act of the gathered church aimed at repentance and restoration (5:5), never as an individual curse-utterance. Mandatory translator note at every occurrence. |
| Marriage and Singleness | લગ્ન (marriage), કુંવારી/કુંવારો (virgin/single), અપરિણીત/વિધવા (unmarried/widow), તેડું (calling, baseline reuse, expanded sense) | No lexical collision, but a strong cultural pressure gap: Gujarati Hindu, Jain, and even wider Christian social convention treats marriage as near-universal expectation and widowhood as socially diminished status; Paul’s evenhanded, even pro-singleness, teaching (7:8, 32-38) has no ready cultural landing pad and risks being softened by translators/preachers sympathetically “fixing” the text toward marriage-normativity. | This is a cultural-application risk, not a lexical one — flag for native-speaker/theologian review to guard against euphemistic softening rather than seek a better word. No vocabulary substitution needed; enforce fidelity to the source’s neutral-to-positive framing of singleness. |
| Christian Liberty and Idol Meat | મૂર્તિ (idol), મૂર્તિપૂજા (idolatry), મૂર્તિને અર્પણ કરેલું ભોજન (idol-food), અધિકાર (liberty/right), અંતઃકરણ (conscience) | મૂર્તિ/મૂર્તિપૂજા are maximally direct and unambiguous — this is a strength, not a weakness, giving the doctrine sharp cultural force. The real danger is the adjacent term પ્રસાદ (temple food eaten as blessing), which is warm and positive in ordinary Gujarati religious life and could contaminate “food sacrificed to idols” with a benign connotation if a translator defaults to it for naturalness. | Absolute fence: NEVER પ્રસાદ for εἰδωλόθυτον. Always the full descriptive phrase મૂર્તિને અર્પણ કરેલું ભોજન. Treat as Critical despite being a compound, not single-word, rendering. |
| The Lord’s Supper | પ્રભુ ભોજન (Lord’s Supper), સ્મરણ (remembrance), શરીર અને લોહી (body and blood), સહભાગિતા (participation/communion) | Gujarati Christian tradition already has a working liturgical vocabulary here (પ્રભુ ભોજન), so the primary risk is not collision with Hindu/Jain categories but internal theological precision: સહભાગિતા must stay distinct from the general baseline fellowship term સંગત, and શરીર અને લોહી must avoid implying either bare memorial-only or literal transubstantiation, given the mixed Protestant Gujarati church tradition this curriculum serves. | Fence સહભાગિતા as the ch.10-11 technical Lord’s-Table term, distinct from સંગત (general fellowship). Require translator note on શરીર અને લોહી affirming a memorial/spiritual-presence reading consistent with the mainstream Gujarati Protestant tradition, without asserting physical transformation. |
| Spiritual Gifts and the Body of Christ | આત્મિક કૃપાદાન (baseline), ખ્રિસ્તનું શરીર (body of Christ), આત્માનું પ્રગટીકરણ (manifestation), આત્માઓની પરખ (discerning of spirits), ભાષાઓ (tongues) | The single highest-density crowded-neighborhood cluster in the letter. સિદ્ધિ (yogic/ascetic self-attained supernatural power) is the default Gujarati folk-religious category for “supernatural ability” and sits immediately adjacent to every gift-term in chs.12-14. આત્માઓની પરખ additionally risks folk spirit-exorcism framing. | Never સિદ્ધિ or વરદાન for any gift term (already fenced at baseline level for આત્મિક કૃપાદાન; extend the same fence explicitly to આત્માનું પ્રગટીકરણ and all of ch.12’s gift list). Keep ખ્રિસ્તનું શરીર and મંડળી lexically distinct — same doctrine, two non-interchangeable metaphors. |
| Love as the Greater Way | પ્રેમ (love) | પ્રેમ is the single most crowded term in the entire letter. Gujarat’s Vaishnav prem-bhakti tradition (gopi-Krishna devotional poetry, centered on Dwarka) has saturated પ્રેમ with romantic-devotional-ecstatic connotation over centuries of literary and liturgical use. ἀγάπη’s willed, self-giving, non-erotic, covenantal character is easily lost. | No viable alternative single word exists (શ્રદ્ધા/ભક્તિ are already fenced off for “faith” at baseline and carry their own devotional freight). Retain પ્રેમ but treat 1 Cor 13 as a mandatory-annotation chapter: every attribute clause (“patient,” “kind,” “does not envy”…) should carry contextual framing reinforcing chosen, active, self-giving love over feeling or devotional ecstasy. |
| Order in Worship | વ્યવસ્થા/ક્રમ (order) | Risk is not collision with a devotional category but with Gujarati religious ritual-precision culture — puja and derasar worship both prize exact procedural correctness, and “order” could be read as that kind of ritual exactness rather than Paul’s relational, edification-oriented concern. | Frame વ્યવસ્થા/ક્રમ consistently alongside ઉન્નતિ (edification) in ch.14, so “order” is anchored to “building up the church,” not ritual correctness for its own sake. |
2. Missing Vocabulary — Concepts Requiring First-Principles Construction
These concepts have no existing Gujarati term at all, religious or secular, that carries the needed sense. Unlike crowded-neighborhood terms (§3), the risk here is not wrong-association but no association — the concept must be built from the ground up, exactly as the baseline registry recommended for Incarnation with Jain hearers.
| Concept | Passage | Why No Existing Term Fits | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal headship (Last Adam) | 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49 | Both Hindu and Jain frameworks treat the soul’s fate as individually and mechanically self-determined (karma); there is no concept of one representative head whose act is credited to all humanity. છેલ્લો આદમ (last Adam) is a bare proper-name compound with zero inherited theological content in Gujarati. | Do not attempt a single-word solution. Treat as a teaching unit: pair છેલ્લો આદમ consistently with a short explanatory gloss (“આદમના પાપનું પરિણામ સર્વને મળ્યું, તેમ ખ્રિસ્તનું જીવન વિશ્વાસ કરનાર સર્વને મળે છે”) in study-note material, not embedded in the translated Bible text itself. |
| Substitutionary atonement (ὑπέρ) | 1 Cor 15:3 | Jain karma theory has no mechanism for vicarious transfer of karmic consequence — each soul bears only its own. Popular Hindu devotional frameworks likewise lack a true substitution category (an avatar’s suffering is not typically framed as bearing another’s specific penalty in the forensic sense Paul intends). | Retain the full descriptive clause આપણાં પાપોને માટે મરણ પામ્યો and reinforce with catechetical material (not a single term) building the substitution concept from Scripture’s own logic rather than assuming a cultural bridge-term exists. |
| Federal/corporate “in Adam” vs. “in Christ” solidarity | 1 Cor 15:22 (and implicitly ch.11-12 body-of-Christ theology) | Related to the above; Gujarati kinship and caste-community vocabulary describes belonging by birth or social rite, not by representative spiritual union with a federal head. | Reinforce through the already-established ખ્રિસ્તનું શરીર / ખ્રિસ્તમાં ખ્રિસ્તી ઓળખ (baseline “Christian Identity in Christ”) doctrine rather than coining a new isolated term; cross-reference explicitly in study notes. |
| Resurrection body’s “spiritual” quality (σῶμα πνευματικόν) | 1 Cor 15:44 | Gujarati has terms for a disembodied soul (આત્મા) and for ordinary embodiment (શરીર), but no existing single term for a real, transformed, still-physical body empowered by the Spirit — the middle category Paul is inventing even in Greek. | Use the compound આત્મિક શરીર, but this compound must always appear paired with પ્રાકૃતિક શરીર in direct contrast within the same sentence/verse, never introduced alone, so the newly-coined pairing is never mistaken for an existing established category. |
| ”Mystery” as openly-revealed, not esoteric | 1 Cor 2:7; 4:1; 13:2; 15:51 | રહસ્ય exists as an ordinary word for “secret,” but the Pauline sense (formerly hidden, now openly proclaimed to all) has no ready-made Gujarati theological equivalent; the nearest available frameworks (Hindu tantra, Jain restricted teaching for advanced initiates) run the opposite direction — secrets kept for an inner circle. | Use રહસ્ય but require a translator note at first occurrence (2:7) establishing the “formerly hidden, now revealed to all” sense, distinguishing it explicitly from an esoteric elite-only teaching. |
3. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods Requiring Fencing
Unlike §2, these are cases where Gujarati vocabulary is abundant — the risk is picking up unwanted freight from an adjacent, well-established religious sense.
| Gujarati Term/Neighborhood | Competing Senses Already Present in Gujarati | Fence Required |
|---|---|---|
| પ્રેમ (love) | VB: gopi-Krishna prem-bhakti romantic/devotional-ecstatic poetry tradition | 1 Cor 13 requires sustained contextual reinforcement (see §1 Love row); never substitute ભક્તિ or શ્રદ્ધા-adjacent phrasing even in paraphrase. |
| જ્ઞાન (knowledge) | JN: samyak-jñāna, one of the Three Jewels, self-attained liberating insight; VB/Hindu: jñāna-yoga path to moksha | Retained for γνῶσις in ch.8 only with translator note per baseline registry; never substitute for ડહાપણ (wisdom) or vice versa — they must stay lexically distinct even though both are “knowledge/wisdom” in English. |
| સિદ્ધિ / વરદાન (attained power / boon) | JN: yogic/ascetic self-attained supernatural power; VB: deity-granted boon | Absolute fence around all of chs.12-14’s gift vocabulary (spiritual gifts, manifestation, tongues, prophecy, healing) — none of these may ever be rendered with સિદ્ધિ or વરદાન, extending the baseline’s આત્મિક કૃપાદાન fence to every derivative gift-term coined for this letter. |
| પ્રસાદ (temple food eaten as blessing) | Hindu/Jain: food ritually offered then distributed/eaten as a blessing from the deity | Absolute fence around εἰδωλόθυτον (1 Cor 8, 10) — never પ્રસાદ; always the full descriptive મૂર્તિને અર્પણ કરેલું ભોજન. |
| મંદિર (temple) | Hindu mandir / Jain derasar: a shrine building housing a physical idol | Fence required at every metaphorical occurrence (3:16-17 corporate church; 6:19 individual believer) with mandatory translator note; never let મંદિર stand unexplained as though it refers to a literal shrine building the congregation constructs. |
| અવિનાશી / અમરત્વ (imperishable / immortality) | Hindu: avināśī ātman (the soul’s inherent, self-existing indestructibility, e.g., Bhagavad Gita) | Fence at every 1 Cor 15:42-54 occurrence: immortality/imperishability here is a future gift bestowed on a transformed body at the resurrection, not the soul’s own eternal nature. |
| દર્શન (darshan / auspicious sight of the divine) | VB/Jain: the devotional act of viewing and being viewed by a deity, guru, or Tirthankara image, itself considered spiritually efficacious | Absolute fence: ὀφθάω (“appeared,” 15:5-8) must NEVER be દર્શન આપ્યું. Use plain દેખાયા to preserve evidentiary, historical eyewitness testimony rather than devotional sight-encounter. |
| ભૂત-પ્રેત (ghosts/folk spirits) | Popular Gujarati folk religion: minor, often capricious, non-worship-worthy spirits | δαίμων (10:20-21, “table of demons”) requires reinforcement beyond the folk-ghost register — Paul intends serious, personal, spiritually hostile powers genuinely receiving worship through idolatry, not harmless folklore; translator note mandatory. |
| ગુરુ-પરંપરા (guru-lineage transmission) | VB/JN: authoritative teaching handed down disciple-to-disciple from a living or historical guru/Tirthankara lineage | παραλαμβάνω/παραδίδωμι (15:1, 3; 11:2, 23) risk being read as this kind of ongoing lineage-transmission; translator note must specify a closed, historical, eyewitness-verified, one-time apostolic deposit, not an open or evolving instructional lineage. |
| શાપિત (cursed) / occult curse practice (jādū-ṭonā) | Popular Gujarati folk religion: curse-casting by a practitioner against an enemy | ἀνάθεμα (16:22) and παραδίδωμι Σατανᾷ (5:5) both require fencing from personal/occult curse practice; both are solemn, corporate, Scripture-grounded verdicts, not individual magical acts. |
4. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions
| English/Greek Term | Decision | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Χριστός (Christ) | Transliterate: ખ્રિસ્ત | Already established Gujarati Christian usage per AI requirements doc; a paraphrase (“Anointed One,” “મસીહા” reused) would blur Christ’s use as Jesus’ proper title throughout the letter, distinct from the OT-promise-focused મસીહા. |
| σταυρός (cross) | Transliterate/loan-retain: ક્રૂસ | ક્રૂસ is the established Gujarati Christian loanword; no native paraphrase (“વધસ્તંભ” execution-post) carries the theological weight already attached to ક્રૂસ in existing Gujarati hymnody and liturgy. Retaining it also avoids inventing new vocabulary for a term that must anchor the letter’s central “wisdom and power” paradox. |
| Κηφᾶς (Cephas) | Transliterate: કેફાસ, glossed પિતર | Proper name; gloss preserves recognizability for readers who know “Peter” but not “Cephas.” |
| Μαρανὰ θά (Maranatha) | Transliterate: મારાનાથા | Follows the baseline precedent of preserving અબ્બા (Abba) untranslated for its liturgical intimacy/urgency; gloss with “પ્રભુ, આવો” in study notes. |
| πάσχα (Passover) | Transliterate: પાસ્ખા | No native paraphrase captures the specific OT festival referent required for the typological argument (Christ as the fulfilled Passover); a generic “sacrifice” paraphrase would sever the OT connection Paul is deliberately invoking. |
| ἀνάθεμα (anathema) | Paraphrase: શાપિત (“cursed/set apart for destruction”) rather than transliterate | Unlike Maranatha, this term needs to communicate active theological content (a solemn scriptural verdict) rather than serve as a proper-noun-like liturgical marker; a bare transliteration (“અનાથેમા”) would be opaque to readers and would not activate the necessary fence against occult curse-practice on its own — the Gujarati word itself must do interpretive work. |
| ἐφάπαξ (once for all) | Paraphrase: એક જ સમયે | No transliteration tradition exists; the paraphrase must carry the full weight of historical singularity against cyclical-time assumptions, so plain descriptive Gujarati is preferable to a borrowed technical term that would carry no inherited meaning. |
| ψυχικός / πνευματικός contrast (natural/spiritual person and body) | Paraphrase, not transliterate: પ્રાકૃતિક / આત્મિક | A transliterated Greek pair (e.g., “psychikos/pneumatikos”) would be maximally opaque to Gujarati readers and provide zero interpretive traction; paraphrase is required despite the collision risk noted in §1/§3, because the alternative (transliteration) fails to communicate at all. |
| εἰδωλόθυτον (food sacrificed to idols) | Paraphrase (full descriptive phrase), never single-word | A single-word rendering would inevitably default to the crowded-neighborhood term પ્રસાદ (§3); the full compound phrase મૂર્તિને અર્પણ કરેલું ભોજન is deliberately verbose to prevent that collapse. |
| κεφαλή (headship) | Paraphrase: શિર (plain “head”) rather than a theologically-loaded compound | Avoiding an invented compound (e.g., “અધિકારી-શિર”) keeps the ambiguity Paul’s own κεφαλή carries (source vs. authority) open for theologian-level exegetical judgment at each occurrence, rather than prematurely resolving it in the lexical choice itself. |
General principle applied: transliteration is preferred only where (a) an existing Gujarati Christian liturgical/loanword tradition already exists (ખ્રિસ્ત, ક્રૂસ, અબ્બા/મારાનાથા-family), or (b) the term functions as a proper name/festival name requiring recognizability (કેફાસ, પાસ્ખા). Paraphrase is required wherever the term must do active interpretive/doctrinal work for a reader with no inherited vocabulary, even at the cost of verbosity (e.g., idol-food) or invented compounding (e.g., natural/spiritual body).
5. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities in 1 Corinthians
Ranked by combined severity (doctrinal centrality × collision strength × frequency), for Phase 2 review-routing priority. All items below require human theologian review per doctrine_risk_registry conventions unless otherwise noted.
- ὀφθάω “appeared” (15:5-8) vs. દર્શન (darshan) — The core passage’s entire evidentiary argument (eyewitness resurrection testimony) collapses into devotional sight-encounter framing if દર્શન leaks in anywhere, even informally in teaching material. Highest priority because it sits inside the letter’s theological anchor passage itself.
- σῶμα πνευματικόν “spiritual body” (15:44) vs. disembodied-soul or reincarnation readings — A newly-coined compound term with no inherited meaning; extremely easy to misread as either “just a soul” (Hindu-adjacent) or “a new body under a fresh karmic cycle” (Jain-adjacent) if the mandatory paired contrast with પ્રાકૃતિક શરીર is dropped in any single occurrence.
- ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν “died for our sins” (15:3) — substitution vs. mere causation — The single most theologically load-bearing clause in the core passage; Gujarati preposition/clause-order choices could easily drift toward “died because of sin” (causal) rather than “died in our place” (substitutionary), and no cultural framework offers a corrective safety net.
- παραλαμβάνω/παραδίδωμι “received/delivered” (15:1,3) vs. guru-paramparā lineage transmission — Frames how the entire gospel-content argument of ch.15 is received; a guru-lineage misreading would turn a closed historical deposit into an open, evolving spiritual transmission.
- ἀγάπη “love” throughout ch.13 vs. prem-bhakti romantic/devotional resonance — Extremely high frequency (repeated across 13 verses), extremely high cultural saturation of the competing sense (Dwarka-adjacent devotional poetics), and no viable alternative lexeme — this is a “live with the risk and fence it” situation requiring sustained vigilance across every clause of the chapter.
- γνῶσις “knowledge” (8:1-3) vs. Jain samyak-jñāna — A single chapter’s central term collides with one of Jainism’s Three Jewels; mishandling could make Paul sound like he is validating or attacking a specific rival soteriological path rather than critiquing loveless intellectualism generally.
- ναός “temple” metaphor (3:16-17; 6:19) vs. mandir/derasar shrine-building model — Recurs at both corporate and individual levels; failure to attach the mandatory translator note at either occurrence risks the entire church-as-temple / body-as-temple theology being read as a claim about a physical shrine housing an image.
- εἰδωλόθυτον “food sacrificed to idols” (8, 10) vs. પ્રસાદ — The single most tempting “natural-sounding” mistranslation in the letter, because પ્રસાદ is the ordinary, warm, everyday Gujarati word an unguarded translator would reach for; the fence must be enforced mechanically, not just noted.
- κεφαλή “headship” (11:3) — source vs. authority vs. cultural patriarchal over-literalization — Compounded risk: Gujarati’s existing patriarchal social assumptions may amplify an authority-only reading beyond the text’s own ambiguity, with direct pastoral consequences for gender relations teaching.
- παραδίδωμι Σατανᾷ “deliver to Satan” (5:5) vs. occult curse practice (jādū-ṭonā) — A single, low-frequency but high-severity occurrence; if handled without the mandatory corporate-discipline framing note, could be sensationalized or feared as literal curse-casting.
- ὁ ἔσχατος Ἀδάμ “last Adam” (15:45-49) — federal headship with no structural parallel — Low frequency but foundational to the chapter’s argument for the certainty of believers’ resurrection; risk is not mis-association but blank incomprehension without deliberate first-principles teaching.
- ἀνάθεμα “anathema” (16:22) vs. folk-curse practice — Single occurrence, but a jarring closing note if misheard as personal cursing rather than a solemn scriptural verdict on rejecting Christ.
- δαίμων “demons,” table of demons (10:20-21) vs. ભૂત-પ્રેત folk-ghost register — Risk of Paul’s serious warning being domesticated into harmless folklore rather than genuine spiritual danger.
- φθαρτός/ἄφθαρτος “perishable/imperishable” (15:42-54) vs. avināśī ātman — High-frequency pairing across the chapter’s climactic argument; every occurrence needs the “future gift, not inherent soul-nature” framing.
- σχίσμα “division/schism” (1:10; 11:18) — register drift toward secular political factionalism — Medium risk, included here because of how foundational unity is to the letter’s opening rhetorical strategy (chs. 1-4); a merely political-sounding rendering would undersell the theological stakes of a divided body of Christ.
Summary for Phase 2 Handoff
- Extend the baseline forbidden-substitution list with, at minimum: NEVER પ્રસાદ (idol-food), NEVER દર્શન આપ્યું (resurrection appearances), NEVER સિદ્ધિ/વરદાન (spiritual gifts, extending baseline scope to ch.12-14 derivative terms), NEVER જ્ઞાન for “wisdom of God” (only for the ch.8 γνῶσις with mandatory note).
- Six terms/concepts require mandatory translator notes at every occurrence regardless of risk tier already assigned: ναός (temple), ὀφθάω (appeared), κεφαλή (headship), εἰδωλόθυτον (idol food), σῶμα πνευματικόν (spiritual body), and παραδίδωμι Σατανᾷ (deliver to Satan).
- No viable single-term fix exists for ἀγάπη (love) or γνῶσις (knowledge); both require sustained contextual/annotative fencing rather than lexical substitution.
- Federal headship (Last Adam) and substitutionary atonement require catechetical/study-note scaffolding beyond what any single Gujarati lexical choice can carry — flag both for supplementary doctrinal material, not just glossary entries.
This analysis feeds directly into Phase 1 Steps 2-9 (extended translation_memory.json / bible_term_registry.json finalization) and Phase 1 Step 11 (doctrine risk registry) for 1 Corinthians.