Linguistic Gap Analysis — 1 Corinthians (English → Hebrew)

Purpose and Method

This document executes Phase 1 Step 8 for the 1 Corinthians curriculum. It analyzes, doctrine by doctrine across all sixteen chapters, where Hebrew’s existing theological, liturgical, and halakhic vocabulary is an asset, where it is absent (a true lexical gap), and where it is dangerously abundant (a “crowded semantic neighborhood” requiring explicit fencing so the reader’s existing associations do not silently override Paul’s argument). It builds directly on the baseline Romans translation_memory.json/bible_term_registry.json and on 08_core_glossary.md’s Parts A–D, without contradicting any established rendering.

The core passage, 1 Corinthians 15:1-11, is the theological anchor throughout — the Resurrection of Christ doctrine receives the deepest treatment — but this analysis maintains full-book coverage, since chapters 1–14 and 16 build the vocabulary and doctrinal scaffolding on which 15:1-11 depends (the gospel definition of 15:3-5 presupposes “grace,” “sin,” “scriptures,” and “delivered/tradition” language seeded from ch. 1 onward; 15:12’s controversy presupposes the resurrection-body vocabulary of the whole letter’s ecclesiology).

---

Section 1: Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

Each row records the doctrine, the Hebrew terms currently available (from baseline reuse or the new Part B glossary), the specific weakness/gap in that vocabulary, and the recommended translation strategy for Phase 2.

1.1 The Resurrection of Christ and Believers

Available Hebrew terms	Weakness	Recommended strategy
תחיית המתים (resurrection, baseline)	Judaism affirms general future resurrection robustly (13 Principles, Amidah); the gap is not the noun but fit — one dead-and-risen individual ahead of the general resurrection, guaranteeing it as ביכורים (firstfruits), does not match the Rabbinic template of a single unbroken future event	Always pair תחיית המתים with ביכורים/ראשית הביכורים (15:20, 23) so the “guarantee of more to come” logic is explicit, not assumed
נראה (appeared)	LXX theophany resonance (Gen 12:7) risks either overclaiming (a theophany) or underclaiming (a subjective vision); 15:5-8’s list of named, numbered witnesses is Paul’s own argument for verifiability	Retain נראה but always anchor it to a named witness/count (“appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve…”) so the verifiable-eyewitness framing, not a vision-report framing, is unmistakable
נרדמו / ישנים (fell asleep)	Existing Hebrew sleep-euphemism for death is a genuine asset but is doctrinally inert on its own — it says nothing about resurrection hope unless the surrounding clause supplies it	Never let “fell asleep” stand alone in a segment; always co-occur with explicit resurrection-hope language in the same sentence or immediate context
האדם הראשון / האדם האחרון (first/last Adam)	Same federal-headship collision as Romans 5; positive counterpart (last Adam as life-giver) is equally unfamiliar to a praxis-oriented anthropology	Teach as a matched pair, never introduce “last Adam” without “first Adam” already established in the same unit
גוף נפשי / גוף רוחני (natural/spiritual body)	Risk of disembodiment misreading; נפשי could be misheard as “merely psychological” rather than “Adam-patterned, mortal”	Gloss on first occurrence per document: “not two different substances, but one body transformed”
שופר (trumpet)	Strong positive resonance (Rosh Hashanah, Isa 27:13) but risks collapsing 1 Cor 15:52’s specific resurrection-of-the-dead event into the general ingathering-of-exiles expectation	Footnote the distinction: this is the resurrection trumpet, not a claim about national ingathering fulfillment
כפרה (atonement, 15:3)	Central Yom Kippur category; the conceptual leap from repeated ritual kapparah to a single, final, historical death is large	Always pair with “once for all” language (a phrase to be fixed in Phase 2 and reused consistently)
מסרתי / מסורת (delivered/tradition, 15:3)	Positive mesorah resonance, but risk of implying an open, still-developing Oral-Torah-like process	Explicit note: this is a closed, fixed apostolic deposit, received once and transmitted unchanged

Overall doctrine strategy: This doctrine has the richest positive vocabulary base in the whole curriculum (resurrection itself is shared ground) but the highest framing burden — nearly every term above is correct in isolation and misleading without a co-occurring clause supplying the specifically Pauline claim (one individual’s past bodily resurrection, verified by named witnesses, guaranteeing and preceding a still-future general resurrection). Recommend a standing footnote template reused at every occurrence of תחיית המתים in chapter 15.

1.2 Christian Unity versus Factionalism

Available Hebrew terms	Weakness	Recommended strategy
פילוג / מחלוקת (divisions)	מחלוקת carries a positive rabbinic charge (machloket le-shem shamayim, dispute for the sake of Heaven) that could soften Paul’s unambiguous condemnation	Prefer פילוג as the primary rendering for the negative Corinthian party-spirit; reserve מחלוקת only where the English itself names a debate/disagreement, not partisan rupture
מריבה (strife); התפארות (boasting)	Low risk; both map cleanly	Use as recorded
קהילה (church, baseline Critical)	Already fenced by baseline (never עדה); ch. 1, 3, 12 apply it to a divided, quarreling local body — risk that “the church of God” language reads as an idealized, already-unified entity rather than the actual flawed Corinthian congregation being addressed	Retain קהילה but do not let surrounding phrasing imply the Corinthian assembly’s unity is achieved rather than commanded
גוף המשיח (body of Christ)	High-risk term (see 1.8) doing double duty as both the unity-doctrine’s organizing metaphor (ch. 12) and the Church-Israel doctrine’s key term	Cross-reference explicitly to church_as_gods_people/grafting-in framing whenever body-of-Christ unity language appears

Overall doctrine strategy: No true lexical gap; the risk is entirely in framing מחלוקת’s positive rabbinic charge against the negative פילוג sense, and in ensuring קהילה’s unity is read as normative-commanded rather than descriptive-achieved.

1.3 The Cross as Wisdom and Power

Available Hebrew terms	Weakness	Recommended strategy
צלב (cross); נצלב (crucified)	CRITICAL: not a semantic gap but a live historical wound — pogroms, forced conversions, and Crusades were carried out under the sign of the cross; “a crucified Messiah” is the central and oldest point of Jewish-Christian dispute, sharpened by Deut 21:23’s “cursed is everyone hung on a tree”	Never introduce צלב/נצלב without contextual framing that explicitly distinguishes the doctrinal claim from its historical misuse; flag every occurrence for theologian review, not just first occurrence
מכשול (stumbling block)	Excellent lexical fit (Lev 19:14) is itself the risk — it is too natural, and could read as a general ethical warning rather than the specific claim that the Messiah’s own death is the stumbling block	Retain object explicitly: “the Messiah crucified, a stumbling block to…” never let מכשול float free of its referent
חכמה (wisdom); סכלות (foolishness)	Chochmah is a beloved, entirely positive OT category (Proverbs, Wisdom literature); Paul’s ironic negative usage (“wisdom of this world”) could misread as devaluing chochmah itself	Always qualify with “of this world” / “of the age” (Hebrew: חכמת העולם הזה) whenever wisdom is used negatively; never let bare חכמה carry Paul’s ironic weight unqualified
רז (mystery)	Selected over סוד specifically to avoid Kabbalistic PaRDeS/esoteric associations	Enforce רז exclusively; flag any drafted use of סוד for correction
רוחני / נפשי (spiritual/natural person)	No lexical collision, but the antithesis is invisible unless both terms appear in the same unit	Always render the pair together on first introduction (2:14-15); do not translate נפשי in isolation elsewhere without the contrast restated

Overall doctrine strategy: This is 1 Corinthians’ one genuinely new Critical-tier doctrine with no Romans equivalent. Recommend formal addition to the doctrine risk registry (see Section 5) at Critical tier, given the cross’s unique historical-trauma dimension distinct from ordinary doctrinal difficulty.

1.4 Church Discipline and Holiness

Available Hebrew terms	Weakness	Recommended strategy
קדוש / קדושים / התקדשות (baseline High/Medium)	Already fenced (ritual-practice scope risk); ch. 5-6’s application to expelling an unrepentant member for sexual sin is a specific disciplinary mechanism with no exact baseline precedent	Extend the existing sanctification-doctrine framing to explicitly cover corporate discipline, not only individual moral transformation
חמץ / מצה (leaven/unleavened)	Chametz-removal is one of the most minutely practiced halakhic observances in Jewish life (bedikat chametz, biur chametz); risk of readers either over-literalizing into dietary chametz-removal, or conversely under-weighting Paul’s metaphor as merely decorative	Footnote explicitly: this is metaphorical moral extension of a practice the reader already knows literally, not a dietary instruction
פסח (Passover)	CRITICAL — Pesach is the central festival of Jewish national memory (Exodus, redemption from bondage); typological application to Christ’s death (5:7) is a foundational NT interpretive move superimposed on the reader’s own most cherished festival	Always frame as fulfillment/typology within Passover’s own redemption themes, never as supersession of Passover’s meaning
היכל (temple)	High risk — heichal is precisely the Jerusalem Temple’s inner sanctuary, whose destruction is mourned (Tisha B’Av) and rebuilding remains live messianic hope; applying it to a believer’s body (6:19) or the church (3:16-17) is a significant metaphorical extension	Never let היכל stand without an explicit “you/your bodies/this assembly are…” framing clause; do not use bare היכל in a way that could be misread as claiming the physical Temple’s restoration is unnecessary or already accomplished
נקנה במחיר (bought with a price)	Deliberately kept distinct from ge’ulah’s covenantal-redemption register	Enforce; do not let translators substitute נגאל
נרחצתם / התקדשות / ההצדקה (6:11 triad)	Risk of collapsing three distinct forensic/transformational categories into one generic “cleansed” gloss	Preserve all three forms exactly per baseline; flag any segment that merges them

Overall doctrine strategy: Two Critical-tier collision points (פסח, היכל) sit inside an otherwise well-served doctrine; both require sustained explicit typological framing rather than being treated as simple vocabulary substitutions.

1.5 Marriage and Singleness

Available Hebrew terms	Weakness	Recommended strategy
להתחתן / לשאת אישה (marry)	Marriage carries mitzvah status in Judaism (peru u-revu, Gen 1:28); Paul’s elevation of singleness (7:1, 7-8) sits in real tension with this, not a neutral cultural variance	Frame explicitly as situational, eschatologically-motivated apostolic counsel (“in view of the present distress,” 7:26) — never as a general devaluation of marriage as an institution
להיפרד / גירושין (divorce)	High risk — halakhic divorce (get) is a specific, developed legal procedure with its own document, witnesses, and rabbinic court process; Paul’s pastoral instruction operates in an entirely different, apostolic-ethical register	Never use גירושין in a way that implies equivalence with, supersession of, or contradiction of get procedure; render Paul’s counsel as pastoral instruction addressed to believers’ consciences, not competing halakhah
בתולה, פנוי/פנויה (virgin, unmarried), שליטה עצמית (self-control)	Low risk	Use as recorded

Overall doctrine strategy: No missing vocabulary; the entire risk is the mitzvah-status collision around marriage and the halakhic-divorce-procedure collision — both are framing problems, not lexical ones, matching the baseline’s Torah-framing convention (see baseline “law” entry’s own note that “no viable substitute word exists; the risk is entirely in framing”).

1.6 Christian Liberty and Idol Meat

Available Hebrew terms	Weakness	Recommended strategy
אליל (idol); עבודת אלילים (idolatry)	Strong, entirely negative Torah category; Paul’s more permissive argument (idols are nothing in themselves, yet food offered to them can still wound conscience) is more nuanced than a blanket avoidance stance	Teach the two-sided argument explicitly: idols’ metaphysical nothingness (ch. 8, 10:19-20) alongside real conscience-and-community harm — do not let אליל’s uniformly negative charge flatten this into simple prohibition
מאכל שנזבח לאלילים (food sacrificed to idols)	Missing-vocabulary case: no exact halakhic category parallel exists; kashrut’s forbidden/permitted distinctions run on entirely different grounds (species, slaughter method, mixtures) than Paul’s conscience-and-conduct framework	Retain the constructed phrase (not a single-word halakhic borrowing); explicitly note in surrounding teaching material that this is not a kashrut-equivalent category
מצפון (conscience)	Missing/under-theologized: classical halakhic ethics centers on external conduct and communal norms more than an individual inner faculty of moral self-judgment as the operative category	Treat מצפון as a genuinely new ethical category being introduced, not an existing Jewish-ethics term being reused; brief definitional scaffolding recommended at first occurrence (ch. 8)
זכות / סמכות / חירות (right/liberty)	Context-sensitive; no single Hebrew word covers exousia’s full semantic range (authority, permission, right)	Select per-context; document each choice’s rationale in the segment cache per the AI instruction set’s ambiguity-handling protocol
שדים (demons)	Existing category, but folk-Jewish demonology differs somewhat in character/function from the NT’s demonic framework tied specifically to idol-worship	Brief clarifying note recommended at 10:20-21; not a lexical substitution issue

Overall doctrine strategy: This doctrine contains the curriculum’s clearest true missing-vocabulary cases (food-sacrificed-to-idols, conscience) — no existing Hebrew religious-ethical term maps onto Paul’s specific conceptual moves, requiring constructed phrases and explicit scaffolding rather than single-word solutions.

1.7 The Lord’s Supper

Available Hebrew terms	Weakness	Recommended strategy
סעודת האדון (the Lord’s Supper)	CRITICAL, missing-vocabulary case: no continuous native-Hebrew Christian liturgical tradition exists comparable to Delitzsch’s precedent for other terms; this is a constructed compound, doctrinally sound but liturgically undertested	Fix this exact rendering across all curriculum documents from first use; do not permit stylistic variation
דם (blood)	CRITICAL — direct, explicit collision with the Torah’s severe and repeated blood-consumption prohibition (Lev 17:10-14; Gen 9:4); among the most halakhically load-bearing prohibitions in the entire Torah	Every occurrence must carry explicit symbolic/memorial framing language in the immediate context; never allow דם to stand in a way that could be read as endorsing literal blood consumption
ברית חדשה (new covenant)	High — genuine positive textual anchor (Jer 31:31’s own phrase) but its extension to uncircumcised Gentiles apart from Torah observance remains, per the baseline covenant entry, “a live point of difficulty, not a foreign concept needing basic introduction”	Reuse baseline covenant framing exactly; do not treat 11:25 as requiring fresh doctrinal groundwork — cross-reference the baseline covenant entry
זיכרון (remembrance)	Positive Haggadah-memorial resonance is an asset, but the specific referent (Christ’s atoning death) does not transfer automatically from Passover זכר alone	Make explicit in context what is being remembered; do not rely on זיכרון’s positive charge to carry meaning unaided
כוס האדון / שולחן האדון (cup/table of the Lord)	High — the “Adon” component inherits the baseline’s Critical lordship-risk profile	Apply the same sacred-Name-adjacent care given to אדון elsewhere in the baseline
להבחין (discern the body)	High — exegetically genuinely ambiguous referent (sacramental body vs. ecclesial body)	Preserve ambiguity deliberately; do not resolve toward one reading in translation; flag for theologian review at every occurrence

Overall doctrine strategy: Recommend this doctrine be added to the doctrine risk registry as its own Critical-tier entry (see Section 5) — it combines a true missing-vocabulary case (the institution itself) with the curriculum’s single most severe Torah-collision term (דם).

1.8 Spiritual Gifts and the Body of Christ

Available Hebrew terms	Weakness	Recommended strategy
מתנות רוחניות (spiritual gifts, baseline Medium)	Baseline notes this doctrine receives only brief treatment in Romans (12:6-8); 1 Corinthians 12-14 develops it across three full chapters	Recommend escalating tracked risk to High for this curriculum specifically (already flagged in 08_core_glossary Part C)
לשונות (tongues)	No lexical collision (plain word for “languages”), but the phenomenon is unfamiliar; risk of misreading as ordinary multilingual competence or as purely psychological/ecstatic expression with no Spirit-given content	Consistently frame with “gift of the Spirit” qualifier; never let לשונות appear as a bare noun without its spiritual-gift framing in doctrinal contexts
פירוש לשונות (interpretation of tongues)	Must stay distinct from ordinary תרגום (translation)	Enforce פירוש exclusively for this gift; flag תרגום substitutions
נסים (miracles)	Deliberately preferred over גבורות to maintain the baseline’s Kabbalah-avoidance convention (parallel to power_of_God’s כוח vs. גבורה)	Enforce consistently
גוף המשיח (body of Christ)	High — extends ch. 6’s individual-body-as-temple language into a corporate metaphor; must cohere with the baseline’s Critical church_as_gods_people doctrine and Romans 11’s grafting-in framework	Never let body-of-Christ unity-in-diversity language drift toward implying the church has replaced or superseded Israel; cross-reference explicitly
רוח הקודש (Holy Spirit, baseline Critical)	1 Corinthians 12 presents the Spirit as the personal, sovereign distributor of gifts — reinforces rather than introduces new risk beyond the baseline’s existing framing (impersonal-influence default; “departed with the prophets” default)	Reuse baseline framing; no new strategy needed

Overall doctrine strategy: Primarily a depth problem, not a gap problem — existing terms are adequate, but chapters 12-14’s sustained development requires the risk tier itself to be revisited upward from the Romans baseline.

1.9 Love as the Greater Way

Available Hebrew terms	Weakness	Recommended strategy
אהבה (love)	Rich, positive, central Hebrew word (Shema’s “ve-ahavta”); risk runs opposite to most Critical terms — the word is too familiar and broad (romantic, familial, casual usage) to automatically carry Paul’s demanding, specific, others-oriented definition (13:4-7)	Let the descriptive content of 13:4-7 itself carry the theological weight; do not rely on אהבה alone to signal Paul’s specific sense — this is a dilution-through-familiarity risk, structurally identical to the baseline’s שלום (peace) caution
תקווה (hope)	Positive “Hatikvah” resonance; NT-specific resurrection-grounding (ch. 15) must be made explicit rather than assumed automatically read into the word	Cross-reference explicitly to the resurrection doctrine wherever theological hope-language appears
בראי, כחידה (dim mirror); פנים אל פנים (face to face)	No collision; positive intertextual anchors (Exod 33:11)	Use as recorded

Overall doctrine strategy: No lexical gap; sole risk is dilution through the word’s everyday ubiquity, requiring the surrounding descriptive content (not the word choice) to bear the doctrinal weight — recommend Medium tier consistent with 08_core_glossary’s Part C proposal, but flag for native-speaker review specifically on the dilution risk rather than a doctrinal-collision risk.

1.10 Order in Worship

Available Hebrew terms	Weakness	Recommended strategy
כיסוי ראש (head covering)	High — head-covering already exists as a well-established Jewish practice (married women’s hair-covering; men’s kippah) grounded in entirely different halakhic rationale; risk that Paul’s creation-order argument (11:3-16) is silently assimilated into that existing but distinct rationale	Explicitly disambiguate Paul’s stated rationale (creation order, 11:8-9) from existing Jewish head-covering practice’s rationale in any accompanying teaching material; do not let the shared practice imply a shared reason
ראש / ראשות (headship)	High — same creation-order argument requires careful, non-collapsed rendering distinct from ordinary “leader/head of household” usage	Retain literal “head” sense where the metaphor is active (11:3) rather than jumping directly to an abstract “authority” gloss that would lose the wordplay with the literal head-covering discussion
לשתוק / דממה (silence)	High — 14:34-35 is among the most exegetically contested passages in the epistle	Render the plain sense accurately; flag for theologian review; do NOT resolve the interpretive debate (about scope, context, or textual questions) through translation choice
לבנות (edify); סדר (order)	Low — סדר has positive Passover Seder resonance	Use as recorded; the seder-connection is a genuine, welcome asset worth noting in accompanying teaching material

Overall doctrine strategy: This is 1 Corinthians’ second genuinely new doctrine with no Romans precedent (alongside The Cross). Recommend formal addition to the doctrine risk registry at High tier (see Section 5).

---

Section 2: Missing Vocabulary — True Lexical Gaps

These are cases where no existing Hebrew word or established Christian-Hebrew coinage adequately covers the source concept, requiring either a constructed compound phrase or deliberate scaffolding rather than a single-word solution:

1. The Lord’s Supper as an institution (סעודת האדון) — no continuous native-Hebrew Christian liturgical tradition; constructed compound, doctrinally sound but requiring fixed, consistent use from first occurrence.
2. Food sacrificed to idols (מאכל שנזבח לאלילים) — no halakhic category parallel; kashrut’s substance-based categories do not map onto Paul’s conscience-and-conduct framework.
3. Conscience (מצפון) as a theologically load-bearing inner faculty — under-theologized in classical halakhic ethics, which centers on external conduct; must be introduced as a genuinely new ethical category, not assumed to carry existing Jewish-ethical weight.
4. Natural/spiritual body distinction (גוף נפשי / גוף רוחני) — no existing Hebrew resurrection-body vocabulary distinguishes a present mortal mode from a future transformed mode of the same body; Rabbinic resurrection expectation does not require this two-mode framework.
5. Discern the body (להבחין) — no single Hebrew term captures the deliberate double-referent (sacramental/ecclesial) Paul may intend; this is a genuine translation gap, not merely a risk, and should be preserved as ambiguous rather than resolved.
6. Mind of Christ (מחשבת המשיח) — the Isaiah 40:13 echo (“who has known the mind of the LORD”) gives partial scaffolding, but the claim that believers now possess this mind in some sense has no ready-made Jewish theological category.

Section 3: Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods Requiring Fencing

These are cases with the opposite problem: abundant existing Hebrew religious/cultural vocabulary whose strong existing associations risk silently substituting for, diluting, or contradicting Paul’s specific point unless explicitly fenced off.

Term	Crowding source	Fence required
פסח (Passover)	Central national festival, Exodus memory, Haggadah liturgy	Fence: typological fulfillment within, not replacement of, Passover’s redemption themes
חמץ / מצה (leaven/unleavened)	Detailed, actively-practiced halakhic observance (bedikat chametz)	Fence: metaphorical extension only; not a dietary instruction
היכל (temple)	The Jerusalem Temple, its destruction (Tisha B’Av), rebuilding hope	Fence: explicit “you/your bodies are…” metaphorical framing at every occurrence
כיסוי ראש (head covering)	Existing halakhic practice (married women’s covering, kippah) with different rationale	Fence: disambiguate Paul’s creation-order rationale from existing practice’s rationale
טבילה (baptism)	Mikveh, an ongoing repeatable ritual-purity practice	Fence: single, unrepeated identification-act, not recurring purification
חרם (anathema)	Historically weighty rabbinic ban tradition (e.g., against Spinoza)	Fence: connect clearly to its specific textual object (16:22); do not leave as free-floating severe pronouncement
מסורת (tradition, 15:3)	Oral Torah transmission chain (Pirkei Avot)	Fence: closed, fixed, complete apostolic deposit — not an open, still-developing process
שופר (trumpet)	Rosh Hashanah, national ingathering (Isa 27:13)	Fence: this is specifically the resurrection trumpet (15:52), not a claim about national-ingathering fulfillment
ראשית הביכורים (firstfruits)	Shavuot/bikurim Temple offering	Fence: retain the positive “guarantee of the full harvest” logic explicitly, so the metaphor’s point (not just its festival flavor) transfers
מחלוקת (divisions, as alternative rendering)	Positive rabbinic “dispute for the sake of Heaven”	Fence: prefer פילוג for Corinthian party-spirit; reserve מחלוקת for neutral disagreement contexts only
אליל / עבודת אלילים (idol/idolatry)	Uniformly negative Torah category	Fence: Paul’s more nuanced argument (idols are nothing, yet food can still wound conscience) must not be flattened by the term’s uniformly negative charge
ברית חדשה (new covenant)	Jeremiah’s own phrase, Sinai covenant weight	Fence: reuse baseline covenant framing exactly (Gentile inclusion apart from Torah-observance remains a live difficulty, not settled by the phrase alone)

Section 4: Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions

Item	Decision	Rationale
מרנא תא (Maranatha)	Transliterate, do not translate	Preserve the untranslated Aramaic acclamation’s intimate, liturgical immediacy, per the baseline’s Abba precedent; a Hebrew gloss (“בוא אדוננו”) may accompany it in footnotes but must not replace it
ישוע (Jesus)	Established Hebrew Bible-tradition form, never transliterate as ישו	Baseline Critical rule; reaffirmed for this curriculum with no exception
Paul → פאולוס / שאול התרסי	Prefer שאול in narrative-introduction contexts (his own Hebrew name), פאולוס acceptable elsewhere per baseline instruction set	Consistency with established convention
כפרה (kapparah, for atonement)	Paraphrase-via-existing-term, not transliteration	No Greek/Latin loanword is appropriate; the Yom Kippur category is the correct anchor, requiring explicit conceptual-leap teaching rather than a foreign coinage
פסח (Pesach, for Passover)	Use the existing Hebrew festival name directly, no transliteration of the Greek πάσχα	The existing Hebrew term already is the correct referent; introducing a transliterated Greek-derived form would be both unnecessary and would obscure the very typological connection Paul is making
סעודת האדון (Lord’s Supper)	Constructed compound, not transliteration of a Greek/English liturgical term (e.g., not “יוכריסטיה”)	A calqued or transliterated foreign liturgical term would carry zero native resonance and risk reading as a foreign import rather than an ordinance rooted in the Passover meal Paul is directly referencing
רז (mystery, for mystērion)	Native Hebrew term (Daniel’s own raza) preferred over transliteration or over סוד	Genuine Biblical-Hebrew precedent (Daniel 2) avoids both a foreign loanword and the Kabbalistic סוד/PaRDeS association
לשונות (tongues)	Plain Hebrew word, not transliteration of glossolalia	No lexical gap exists; the risk is conceptual framing, not vocabulary, so a native word is correct and a transliterated Greek technical term would be both unnecessary and alienating
חרם (anathema)	Native Hebrew rabbinic-register term, not transliteration	The concept has a real, if weighty, native equivalent; transliteration would lose the very gravity that makes the term work
אבא (Abba, 1 Cor cross-reference to Romans usage)	Retain baseline transliteration convention (already ordinary Hebrew)	No change; reaffirmed for consistency

General rule derived: transliteration is reserved in this curriculum, as in the baseline, for cases where (a) an existing untranslated liturgical form already carries independent devotional weight (Maranatha, Abba) or (b) the target-language word would otherwise require abandoning an established proper-name convention (Jesus/Yeshua). Everywhere else — including several places a translator might be tempted to reach for a Greek-derived loan (Eucharist-style coinages, “kerygma,” “charisma” as a loanword) — a native or constructed Hebrew term is preferred, paired with explicit doctrinal scaffolding rather than a foreign-sounding technical term that would read as imported rather than native to the text.

---

Section 5: Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities for This Curriculum

Ranked by combined severity of (a) doctrinal centrality to 1 Corinthians and the core passage, (b) depth of potential collision with existing Hebrew-speaking reader assumptions, and (c) absence of a ready-made resolution in the Romans baseline.

1. “Crucified Messiah” (משיח נצלב) — 1:23, 15:3 — the single deepest historical-theological wound in Jewish-Christian relations, compounded by Deut 21:23; no baseline precedent exists for the cross specifically (Romans never requires this collocation with this force). Highest risk in the entire curriculum.
2. בלה בdiscern the body” (להבחין) — 11:29 — genuine exegetical ambiguity (sacramental vs. ecclesial referent) that must be preserved, not resolved, in translation — a rare case where the “correct” translation choice is to retain ambiguity deliberately, creating downstream review complexity.
3. דם (blood) in the Lord’s Supper — 11:25 — direct collision with one of Torah’s most severe and repeatedly-stated prohibitions (Lev 17:10-14); requires the heaviest symbolic-framing load of any single term in the curriculum.
4. 14:34-35 silence instructions (לשתוק/דממה) — the most exegetically contested passage in the epistle across the wider Christian interpretive tradition itself, independent of any Hebrew-specific issue; risk is compounded, not created, by translation.
5. הישועה corporate-vs-individual default (15:2) — reinforces the baseline’s Critical salvation-doctrine concern with maximum specificity, since 15:2’s “you are being saved” (הווה ממושך) is a present-tense, ongoing, individually-verbed construction that must resist the corporate/national default.
6. פסח typological application (5:7) — superimposing a Christological reading onto the reader’s own most central festival of national memory; higher personal stakes for a Hebrew-speaking reader than for most other target languages.
7. First Adam / Last Adam federal headship (15:21-22, 45-49) — extends Romans 5’s already-flagged collision into new positive territory (a life-giving federal head) equally unfamiliar to mainstream Jewish anthropology.
8. היכל applied to the body/church (3:16-17, 6:19) — risk of being heard as either trivializing the actual Jerusalem Temple’s significance or as an implicit claim of its supersession.
9. כיסוי ראש / ראשות creation-order argument (11:2-16) — an existing but differently-grounded Jewish practice risks silently absorbing Paul’s distinct rationale.
10. מאכל שנזבח לאלילים and the liberty-vs-conscience argument (chs. 8, 10) — genuine missing-vocabulary case where an over-strict kashrut-style reading or an over-lax “idols are nothing” reading are equally available misreadings.
11. טבילה as single unrepeated act vs. mikveh’s repeatable purification (1:13-17, 12:13, 15:29) — risk of assimilation into an existing but structurally different ritual category.
12. גוף המשיח body-unity metaphor and its coherence with Romans 11’s grafting-in framework (ch. 12) — must not be allowed to drift toward implicit supersessionism through the unity-in-diversity metaphor’s own rhetorical momentum.
13. חכמה’s ironic negative usage (1:20-25) risking devaluation of the positive Wisdom-literature category — a framing risk rather than a collision risk, but pervasive across chs. 1-3.
14. מסורת’s closed-deposit claim vs. Oral Torah’s open-transmission model (15:3) — subtle risk that the positive mesorah resonance implies an ongoing developing tradition rather than a fixed, complete one.
15. אהבה’s dilution through everyday romantic/casual usage (ch. 13) — lowest-severity item on this list (Medium tier) but included because it is the doctrine most likely to be under-flagged precisely because nothing about it looks dangerous.

---

Section 6: Recommendations for Downstream Phase 1 Artifacts

1. Formally add “The Cross as Wisdom and Power” and “Order in Worship” as new Critical/High-tier doctrine entries respectively to the doctrine risk registry (no Romans equivalent exists for either).
2. Formally add “The Lord’s Supper” as its own Critical-tier doctrine entry, distinct from (but cross-referenced to) the baseline’s “covenant” doctrine, given the blood-consumption collision’s severity.
3. Escalate “Spiritual Gifts” from the baseline’s Medium tier to High for this curriculum, reflecting chapters 12-14’s sustained development.
4. Escalate “grace” to High as already proposed in 08_core_glossary.md Part D; retain “faith” at High with reinforced resurrection-specific framing.
5. Add a dedicated “Love as the Greater Way” doctrine entry at Medium tier, flagged specifically for the dilution-through-familiarity risk rather than a doctrinal-collision risk — this affects review routing (native-speaker review should specifically check for under-weighted theological content, not mistranslation).
6. Carry all six Section 2 missing-vocabulary items and all twelve Section 3 crowded-neighborhood items into the doctrine risk registry’s hebrew_risk_notes fields verbatim where they do not already appear in 08_core_glossary.md.

---

This document extends, and does not contradict, the baseline Romans translation_memory.json and bible_term_registry.json. All baseline-established renderings are reused exactly per the hard rule; only new 1 Corinthians-specific vocabulary and risk-tier escalations are proposed above.