Linguistic Gap Analysis — 1 Peter (Hebrew Language Package Extension)

This document executes PRD Phase 1 Step 8 for the 1 Peter curriculum, destination language Hebrew. It does not override the baseline Romans translation_memory.json, bible_term_registry.json, or doctrine_risk_registry.json; it extends their method to 1 Peter’s eight assigned doctrines and identifies where Hebrew’s existing vocabulary resources are sufficient, insufficient, or actively dangerous (crowded semantic neighborhoods). It should be read alongside 08_core_glossary.md, which supplies the specific term-by-term renderings this analysis argues for.

Core passage anchor: 1 Peter 1:3-9 (Living Hope of the Resurrection) — used throughout as the calibration point for register and weight, per the mandate that the core passage is the theological anchor, not the scope boundary.

---

1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

For each of the eight assigned doctrines: the available Hebrew resources, their specific weaknesses, and the recommended handling strategy.

1.1 The Living Hope of the Resurrection (1 Peter 1:3-9, 21; 3:21)

Element	Detail
Core terms	תקווה חיה (living hope), תחיית המתים (resurrection, baseline), ישועה (salvation, baseline), נפשות (souls, 1:9)
Available resources	Hebrew has rich, positive existing vocabulary: תחיית המתים is a shared doctrinal category (13 Principles of Faith, Amidah’s “mechayeh hametim” blessing); תקווה is warm, everyday, hope-laden vocabulary; נפשות aligns positively with Hebrew’s own holistic (non-dualistic) anthropology, matching 1 Peter 1:9’s “salvation of your souls.”
Weaknesses	(a) תקווה’s very familiarity is a liability: it is used dozens of times daily in secular and religious contexts (most famously as the title of Israel’s national anthem, “Hatikvah,” and the phrase “Tikvat Yisrael”), risking a slide toward corporate/national hope rather than Paul… rather than Peter’s individual, resurrection-grounded hope. (b) The causal chain in 1:3 — hope is “living” specifically because of Christ’s resurrection, not generically hopeful — must not be flattened into a bare adjective; Hebrew’s syntax allows the causal clause to be separated from תקווה חיה, which risks losing the tight grammatical bond the Greek preserves.
Recommended strategy	Retain תקווה חיה exactly as fixed in translation memory. In every occurrence, keep the resurrection-causation clause (על ידי תחיית ישוע המשיח מן המתים) grammatically adjacent to תקווה חיה, not relegated to a trailing subordinate clause. Teaching material must explicitly distinguish this individual, already-secured hope from Tikvat Yisrael’s corporate/national register, presenting them as complementary rather than substituted.

1.2 Suffering for Righteousness’ Sake (1 Peter 2:19-20; 3:14, 17; 4:1, 12-19)

Element	Detail
Core terms	חטא (sin, baseline), צדק (righteousness, baseline), יסורים / נסיונות (sufferings/trials), ניסיון כאש (fiery trial)
Available resources	Strong OT martyrological and Akedah (Genesis 22) resonance for נסיון as a refining, faith-testing event rather than punitive; Hebrew has a long tradition of theology of suffering (Job, Lamentations, kiddush HaShem — martyrdom for sanctifying God’s Name) that provides genuine positive scaffolding.
Weaknesses	(a) קידוש השם (kiddush HaShem, sanctification of the Name through martyrdom) is a powerful, historically loaded Jewish category for righteous suffering — it is NOT in translation memory and must not be casually invoked as equivalent, since it carries centuries of specific historical reference (pogroms, the Crusades, the Shoah) that could either powerfully reinforce or inappropriately conflate with 1 Peter’s distinct Christ-suffering pattern. (b) צדק must retain its baseline forensic-standing sense even while also functioning here in a more everyday ethical-conduct sense (“suffering for doing right”); the same word covers both registers and context must disambiguate which is active.
Recommended strategy	Do not introduce קידוש השם as a technical equivalent; if referenced pedagogically as a resonant Jewish category, flag it explicitly as an analogy, not a translation, with a note on the distinct historical referents. Use נסיון / ניסיון כאש consistently (reusing the 1:7 root established in the glossary) and let surrounding context, not vocabulary choice, disambiguate צדק’s forensic vs. ethical-conduct register in each occurrence.

1.3 The Church as a Holy and Royal Priesthood (1 Peter 2:4-10)

Element	Detail
Core terms	כהונה קדושה / כהונת מלכים (holy/royal priesthood), זרע נבחר (chosen race), גוי קדוש (holy nation), עם סגולה (treasured people), קדוש (holy, baseline), קהילה (church-concept, baseline)
Available resources	This is the single richest OT resource cluster in the entire letter: every phrase in 2:9 is a direct, precise quotation of Exodus 19:6 / Deuteronomy 7:6, texts every literate Hebrew reader will recognize instantly as Israel’s own foundational self-description.
Weaknesses	This richness is simultaneously the greatest risk in the letter. (a) כהונה denotes an actual, currently-functioning, hereditary class in Jewish practice (Kohanim — still recognized in synagogue liturgy, the Priestly Blessing, redemption of the firstborn); there is no precedent in Jewish self-understanding for democratizing this office to an entire mixed community. (b) גוי קדוש reuses, letter-for-letter, the same triliteral root (ג-ו-י) as the baseline’s own established rendering of “Gentiles” (גויים) — a word carrying mild-to-strong pejorative colloquial shade in everyday Hebrew/Yiddish-inflected usage. The identical root appearing in Exodus 19:6’s positive, covenantal sense and in the everyday negative sense is a genuine collision, not a coincidence to smooth over. (c) All four phrases in 2:9, taken together, transfer Israel’s most cherished covenantal titles to a body that explicitly includes Gentiles — the single highest supersessionism-risk moment in the letter.
Recommended strategy	Quote each phrase in precise, recognizable Exodus/Deuteronomy Masoretic wording (not paraphrase) so the citation is unmistakable, and pair every occurrence with a mandatory translator’s note invoking Romans 11’s grafting-in framework (already established in the baseline for exactly this purpose). Every occurrence of this cluster requires human theologian review without exception. The גוי קדוש / גויים root collision must be flagged explicitly in teaching material as a feature to explain, not hide — the same root naming Israel’s highest covenantal dignity and, colloquially, an ethnic slur, is itself a teachable moment about the difference between biblical and colloquial registers.

1.4 Submission to Authority and Christlike Endurance (1 Peter 2:13-3:7; 2:18-25)

Element	Detail
Core terms	הכנעו / התכפפו (submit), בעלים (human master, disambiguated from אדון), רועה ופקיד הנפשות (Shepherd and Overseer of souls)
Available resources	הכנעו is unremarkable, neutral Modern Hebrew vocabulary for voluntary submission (used of submission to law, to authority, to God) — no significant collision.
Weaknesses	(a) The single Greek verb ὑποτάγητε spans three structurally different relationships (civil authority, 2:13; household slaves to masters, 2:18; wives to husbands, 3:1; later, younger to elders, 5:5) — Hebrew’s morphology allows the same verb form throughout, but the referent must be established by context every time, since Hebrew readers may otherwise import a single, undifferentiated model of submission across all four relationships, flattening real distinctions Peter maintains (e.g., 3:7’s “joint heirs” qualification of the marriage relationship). (b) δεσπότης (2:18) sharing surface-conceptual space with κύριος (Lord) is a genuine risk in Hebrew specifically because both baseline אדון and the proposed בעלים can, in looser usage, refer to a human figure of authority; the disambiguation must be enforced mechanically, not left to translator judgment per occurrence.
Recommended strategy	Retain consistent verb roots (הכנעו/התכפפו) across all four submission passages per the glossary, but require an explanatory clause specifying the relationship type at first occurrence in each context. Enforce בעלים (never אדון) for δεσπότης as an absolute rule with no exceptions, protecting Christ’s Lordship title from any negative or merely-human association bleeding backward from 2:18.

1.5 Christ’s Substitutionary Suffering (1 Peter 1:18-19; 2:21-25; 3:18)

Element	Detail
Core terms	כשה תמים ובלי מום (lamb without blemish), נשא את חטאינו בגופו על העץ (bore our sins on the tree), ובחברתו נרפא־לנו (by his wounds healed, Isaiah 53:5 MT), הצדיק בעד הרשעים (righteous for the unrighteous)
Available resources	This cluster has the deepest OT textual anchoring of anything in the letter — direct, word-for-word citation of Isaiah 53:5 and clear allusion to Exodus 12’s Passover lamb and Deuteronomy 21:23’s “hung on a tree” curse formula.
Weaknesses	Isaiah 53’s interpretive history is the single most contested text in Jewish-Christian exegetical dialogue: mainstream Rabbinic tradition since Rashi reads the suffering servant as collective Israel, not an individual Messiah. 1 Peter 2:24 applies this text to Christ with zero qualification or argument — it simply assumes the individual-Messiah reading as settled. A Hebrew-speaking reader with any exposure to the Rashi tradition will recognize the source text instantly and may reflexively supply the collective reading, working against the very point the citation is meant to establish.
Recommended strategy	Quote Isaiah 53:5 in exact, recognizable Masoretic wording (never paraphrase) so the connection is unmistakable, but pair every occurrence with a mandatory translator’s note naming the individual-vs-collective interpretive dispute explicitly rather than assuming the individual reading self-evident. Theologian review required at every occurrence without exception; this is the doctrinal center of the letter’s substitution theology and the point of maximum interpretive friction.

1.6 Holiness in Conduct (1 Peter 1:14-16; 2:11-12; 3:1-6, 8-12; 4:1-4)

Element	Detail
Core terms	קדוש (holy, baseline, direct Leviticus 19:2 citation at 1:16), התקדשות (sanctification, baseline), רוח ענווה ושלווה (gentle and quiet spirit), התלבשו בענווה (clothe with humility)
Available resources	קדוש/קדושים is deeply shared, positive vocabulary (Kadosh Baruch Hu; the Kedoshim Torah portion); this is one of the least foreign doctrines in the whole letter.
Weaknesses	The baseline’s own documented risk applies with full force: Jewish holiness is heavily practice-and-ritual bound (kashrut, Shabbat, niddah), while 1 Peter’s holiness is Spirit-wrought moral and relational transformation not reducible to ritual observance. There is a secondary, gender-specific risk at 3:1-6: רוח ענווה ושלווה (gentle and quiet spirit) risks being read, absent careful framing, as commending passivity or enforced silence rather than the inner character quality the Greek describes — especially given Hebrew’s rich, positive ענווה vocabulary already associated with Moses (Numbers 12:3), which is a genuinely masculine, strength-compatible virtue term in the existing tradition and should be leveraged, not shied away from.
Recommended strategy	Quote 1:16 in Leviticus 19:2’s exact Masoretic wording. Throughout, frame holiness as Spirit-produced moral transformation flowing from union with the risen Messiah, explicitly distinguished from — not opposed to — Torah-commanded ritual practice. At 3:4, use the Moses/Numbers 12:3 ענווה resonance pedagogically to pre-empt a passivity misreading.

1.7 Elders and Humility (1 Peter 5:1-5)

Element	Detail
Core terms	זקנים (elders), לרעות / לפקוד על (shepherd/oversight), לשלוט בכוח / להשתלט (domineering, disambiguated from Lord), התלבשו בענווה (clothe with humility), לענוים יתן־חן (Proverbs 3:34 citation)
Available resources	זקנים is a genuine, robust positive resource — Jewish communal eldership (town elders, Sanhedrin elders) is a living category with real social weight, giving the Hebrew reader an intuitive starting frame.
Weaknesses	(a) The NT eldership office is a Spirit-appointed shepherding function tied to spiritual maturity and character, not primarily an age-based communal authority as זקנים implies in ordinary usage — the terms overlap enough to mislead if the distinction is not taught explicitly. (b) קטקυριεύω (domineering, 5:3) shares its Greek root with κύριος/Lord; any Hebrew rendering drawing on the אדון root, even loosely, risks casting a negative shade backward onto Christ’s own Critical-risk Lordship title — this is a purely formal/lexical risk requiring mechanical avoidance, not a doctrinal dispute. (c) The Proverbs 3:34 citation legitimately requires חן (chen), the very word the baseline elsewhere rejects for “grace” due to its Modern Hebrew drift toward “charm/cuteness” — a direct-citation exception structurally parallel to the baseline’s own Genesis 15:6/תזדקה precedent.
Recommended strategy	Use זקנים but pair its first occurrence (5:1) with an explicit note distinguishing the NT shepherding office from age-based communal eldership. Enforce an absolute prohibition on any אדון-root rendering for 5:3’s domineering language; use לשלוט בכוח / להשתלט exclusively. Preserve חן in the Proverbs 3:34 citation at 5:5 exactly as in the Masoretic Text, with the same explanatory translator’s note pattern the baseline uses for Genesis 15:6’s tzedakah.

1.8 Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits (1 Peter 3:18-22)

Element	Detail
Core terms	הכריז לרוחות אשר במשמר (proclaimed to spirits in prison), תבנית מקבילה (antitype), טבילה…כפניה לאלוהים למצפון טוב (baptism as appeal for a good conscience), לימין האלוהים (at the right hand of God)
Available resources	None specific to Hebrew — this passage is one of the most exegetically disputed in the entire New Testament even within the Christian interpretive tradition itself (descent into Hades? proclamation through Noah to his contemporaries? proclamation to fallen angels of Genesis 6?), so there is no pre-existing Hebrew theological vocabulary to draw on, positively or negatively.
Weaknesses	(a) The passage’s own internal ambiguity is the primary risk — any single, confident Hebrew rendering that silently resolves the interpretive question misrepresents the state of scholarly and pastoral disagreement. (b) טבילה (baptism) strongly evokes mikveh ritual immersion practice in everyday Jewish life; Peter’s own explicit clarifying clause (“not as a removal of dirt from the body”) is doing essential work to prevent a ritual-purity reading and must never be dropped, abbreviated, or moved to a footnote. (c) לימין האלוהים (right hand of God, 3:22) echoes Psalm 110:1, itself one of the most disputed messianic prooftexts in Jewish-Christian polemics (the identity of “my lord,” אֲדֹנִי, addressed by David).
Recommended strategy	Render literally and flag the interpretive dispute explicitly with a mandatory translator’s note at every occurrence — do not silently resolve toward any single view. Keep Peter’s own qualifying clause on baptism prominent and untruncated in every rendering. Cross-reference Psalm 110:1’s contested status explicitly whenever 3:22 is discussed. Theologian review required without exception for this entire unit (3:18-22).

---

2. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods

2.1 True Gaps (No Settled Hebrew Christian Precedent)

These concepts have no continuous native-Hebrew-speaking Christian theological tradition to draw on (the same structural gap the baseline documents for “incarnation”), and require deliberately constructed phrasing rather than a single settled word:

Concept	Passage	Nearest Hebrew resource	Gap
Born again / regenerated	1:3, 1:23	Yevamot 22a’s convert-as-newborn dictum	A legal-status conversion category, not a sovereign, Spirit-wrought inward regeneration; the resource is suggestive, not equivalent
Antitype (typological correspondence)	3:21	None	A technical hermeneutical concept with no native Hebrew one-word equivalent; requires phrase + explanatory note every occurrence
Foreknown before the foundation of the world (Christ’s pre-existence)	1:20	Weaker Rabbinic notion of a pre-existent Messianic name or plan (not person)	Ontological personal pre-existence is a genuinely novel claim requiring scaffolded phrasing, not a single term
Spirit of Christ inspiring OT prophets	1:11	None (Torah min ha-Shamayim attributes inspiration to God directly)	Asserts the pre-incarnate Messiah’s personal activity within Israel’s own prophetic history — a claim with no internal Jewish category to map onto

2.2 Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods Requiring Fencing

These are the inverse problem: not an absence of vocabulary but an overabundance of competing, well-established meanings for the same root, requiring explicit fencing (context-locking, translator notes, or absolute prohibition rules) so the wrong sense does not leak in.

Root / Term	Competing established senses	Passage in tension	Fencing required
גוי / גויים / גוי קדוש	(1) Everyday mildly-pejorative “Gentile”; (2) Exodus 19:6’s positive covenantal “holy nation” applied to Israel; (3) 1 Peter 2:9’s extension to a mixed Jewish-Gentile church	2:9	Mandatory translator’s note at every 2:9 occurrence naming the collision explicitly; never use גויים and גוי קדוש in the same teaching unit without flagging the shared root
אדון	(1) Christ’s Critical-risk exclusive Lordship (baseline); (2) mundane “sir/master” for humans throughout Tanakh; (3) the sacred Adonai substitute for the Tetragrammaton	2:3, 2:13, 3:6, 3:12, 3:15	Absolute prohibition on אדון-root for δεσπότης (2:18, use בעלים) and for κατακυριεύω (5:3, use שלט/השתלט); never let a human-authority context borrow this root
כהונה	(1) The actual, functioning, hereditary Kohanim class in living Jewish practice; (2) 1 Peter 2:5,9’s democratized extension to all believers	2:5, 2:9	Theologian review at every occurrence; teaching material must state explicitly that this is a deliberate extension, not a claim that hereditary Kohanim status has been abolished or reassigned
נחלה	(1) Tribal land-allotment inheritance specifically tied to the Land of Israel (Numbers 26, Joshua); (2) 1 Peter 1:4’s heavenly, non-territorial inheritance	1:4, 3:7	Every occurrence requires an explicit “heavenly, not territorial” qualifying clause; never let נחלה stand unqualified
גר / גרים	(1) Jewish legal conversion categories (ger toshav, ger tzedek); (2) 1 Peter’s eschatological-exile self-identity for believers generally	1:1, 2:11	Teaching notes must state this is not a conversion-status claim; pair with תושבים consistently as the glossary specifies
חן / חסד	(1) חסד = baseline’s required rendering for “grace,” carrying full covenant-loyalty weight; (2) חן = Modern Hebrew’s drifted “charm/cuteness” sense; (3) Proverbs 3:34’s legitimate MT use of חן at 5:5	1:2,10,13; 2:19-20; 3:7; 4:10; 5:5,10,12	חן permitted ONLY within the direct Proverbs 3:34 citation at 5:5, with mandatory explanatory note; חסד everywhere else, no exceptions
התגלות / התגלמות	(1) Revelation (Christ’s future unveiling, 1:5,7,13; 4:13; 5:1); (2) baseline’s Critical-risk Incarnation term	throughout	These two roots are visually and phonetically close (ג-ל-ה vs. ג-ל-ם) — proofreading protocol must specifically check for this substitution error at every occurrence of either term
צדק / צדקה	(1) baseline’s required forensic “righteousness” (tzedek); (2) Modern Hebrew’s narrowed “charity” (tzedakah); (3) Genesis 15:6’s legitimate MT tzedakah exception; (4) 1 Peter’s own ethical-conduct usages of tzedek (suffering “for righteousness’ sake,” 3:14) alongside its forensic usages (2:24, 3:18)	2:24; 3:14,18	Maintain the baseline’s tzedek/tzedakah rule exactly; additionally flag every 1 Peter occurrence for whether the active sense is forensic-standing or ethical-conduct, since both are now live within the same short letter

---

3. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions

Decision	Term(s)	Rationale
Transliterate (proper names / established loanwords)	ישוע, משיח, אדון (as a title, not transliterated but a fixed Hebrew word), בבל (Babylon-code, with note)	Established Delitzsch NT and baseline precedent; no viable substitute exists, and the register calls for the established form, not innovation
Use existing native Hebrew word, sense-narrowed by context	קדוש, חסד, אמונה, ישועה, כבוד, שלום, ברית, נביא	Baseline strategy: reuse rich existing OT/Rabbinic vocabulary but attach context or notes to exclude the drifted/narrowed Modern Hebrew sense (see baseline forbidden-substitution list)
Construct a compound phrase (no single word suffices)	תקווה חיה (living hope), כהונה קדושה / כהונת מלכים, נודע מראש לפני בריאת העולם (foreknown before foundation of world), רועה ופקיד הנפשות	Concepts too doctrinally loaded, or too novel, for a single existing word to carry without distortion; the compound preserves the necessary qualifiers
Quote source-language (Masoretic) text directly, do not paraphrase	Psalm 34:8 (2:3), Psalm 118:22/Isaiah 28:16/Isaiah 8:14 (stone catena, 2:6-8), Isaiah 53:5 (2:24), Isaiah 8:13 (3:15), Leviticus 19:2 (1:16), Proverbs 3:34 (5:5), Isaiah 40:8 (1:24-25)	Every direct OT citation in 1 Peter must use the reader’s own recognizable Masoretic wording, not a fresh translation from the Greek, so the citation itself is legible as Scripture the reader already knows, and any interpretive move (applying it to Christ) is visible as an interpretive move, not hidden inside translation choices
Deliberately avoid the “obvious” Hebrew word	δεσπότης → בעלים (not אדון); κατακυριεύω → שלט/השתלט (not any אדון-root); “power” → כוח (not גבורה); “sanctification” → התקדשות (not קידוש); Χριστιανός → מאמין במשיח primarily (not נוצרי as default)	In each case the “obvious” or most literal Hebrew equivalent carries a specific collision risk (sacred-Name territory, Kabbalistic sefirot, liturgical ritual, historically-loaded institutional label) documented in the baseline or the Section B glossary
Provide explanatory note rather than a single settled term	ἀντίτυπον (antitype, 3:21), the proclamation to spirits (3:19), gospel preached to the dead (4:6), Babylon-as-Rome (5:13)	These are technical, ambiguous, or coded references where any single Hebrew word would necessarily choose among live scholarly options; the honest solution is a phrase plus a note, not a falsely confident single term

---

4. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities in 1 Peter (Hebrew)

Ranked by combined severity (doctrinal centrality × likelihood of Hebrew-specific misreading), for Phase 2 review-routing priority:

1. Holy/Royal Priesthood and the Nation/People citation cluster (2:5, 2:9) — Maximal risk: extends Israel’s own most cherished, currently-living covenantal titles (Kohanim priesthood, treasured people, holy nation) to a mixed community, while the גוי קדוש/גויים root collision runs in the opposite semantic direction simultaneously. No other passage in either curriculum combines this many live risks at once.

2. “By his wounds healed” / Isaiah 53:5 applied to Christ (2:24) — The most exegetically contested individual OT text in Jewish-Christian dialogue, cited without argument or qualification, applied to the letter’s central substitutionary claim.

3. Christ’s proclamation to the spirits in prison (3:19-20) — Genuinely disputed even within Christian scholarship; the risk is compounded, not merely inherited, because Hebrew has zero prior theological vocabulary to lean on and any confident single rendering silently resolves a live debate.

4. “Sanctify Christ as Lord” / Isaiah 8:13 applied to Christ (3:15) — A command originally addressed to Israel concerning YHWH himself, applied without qualification to Jesus; sits in the same sacred-Name risk category as the baseline’s “Lord” entry but on fresh, less-prepared textual ground.

5. Righteous for the unrighteous / core substitution formula (3:18) — Compact, load-bearing, and reuses the Critical-risk צדק root in its forensic sense within a single verse that also pivots directly into the disputed 3:19 proclamation — an error here cascades into the next-highest risk item.

6. Foreknown before the foundation of the world / Spirit of Christ inspiring the prophets (1:11, 1:20) — Asserts personal pre-existence and prophetic activity for the Messiah with no internal Jewish category to map onto; risk of flattening into the weaker “pre-existent Messianic plan/name” reading is high and easy to miss.

7. “Taste that the Lord is good” / Psalm 34:8 applied to Christ (2:3) — Same YHWH-to-Christ application pattern as items 2 and 4, recurring structurally (Psalm 34 is cited twice in the letter, 2:3 and 3:10-12), compounding the pattern’s overall weight.

8. Chosen race / holy nation / treasured people taken individually outside the 2:9 cluster (also touching 1:1-2’s election vocabulary) — Even apart from the priesthood cluster’s compounded risk, each title independently risks a supersessionist misreading if isolated from Romans 11’s grafting-in framework.

9. Inheritance (1:4) and joint heirs (3:7) — High likelihood of an automatic territorial/Land-of-Israel default reading given נחלה’s deep covenantal-land resonance; less doctrinally catastrophic than items 1-8 but very high likelihood of occurring in ordinary reading, not just careful exegesis.

10. Baptism as appeal for a good conscience (3:21) and its antitype framing — High risk of collapsing into a mikveh ritual-purity reading specifically because טבילה is such natural, expected vocabulary; the risk is muted only by Peter’s own explicit clarifying clause, which must never be trimmed.

11. “Gospel preached to the dead” (4:6) — Elevated beyond the baseline’s Medium/High “gospel” risk specifically because of unresolved referent/timing questions tied directly to item 3’s ambiguity.

12. Domineering vs. Lord root collision (5:3) — Lower doctrinal centrality but a purely mechanical error risk (accidental אדון-root bleed) that could, if missed, cast a negative shade on Christ’s own Lordship title elsewhere in the same document; requires automated as well as human checking.

13. Proverbs 3:34’s חן exception (5:5) — Structurally identical risk pattern to the baseline’s own Genesis 15:6 tzedakah exception; low intrinsic difficulty but high risk of an inconsistent enforcement error precisely because it is an exception to an otherwise absolute rule.

14. “Christian” identity label (4:16) — Not a text-critical or exegetical risk but a live pastoral-sensitivity risk specific to a Messianic Jewish readership; ranked lower only because the recommended default (מאמין במשיח) substantially mitigates it if consistently applied.

---

5. Recommendations for Phase 2 Preparation

1. Merge Section B of 08_core_glossary.md into translation_memory.json before any segment translation begins, per the baseline’s Load and Enforcement Instructions.
2. Add the fencing rules in Section 2.2 above as explicit forbidden-substitution / mandatory-note entries in the Phase 2 AI system prompt (extending 12_ai_translation_requirements.md’s existing forbidden-substitution list), particularly the גוי/גוי קדוש collision and the חן/חסד exception, neither of which is covered by the Romans-era prompt as written.
3. Flag all fourteen ranked ambiguities above for mandatory human theologian review at every occurrence, not merely first occurrence, given how densely 1 Peter concentrates Critical-risk material into short compass (2:4-10, 2:21-25, 3:15-22).
4. Where a direct OT citation is involved (Section 3’s fourth row), require the Masoretic Text wording to be sourced and verified independently of the Greek-to-Hebrew translation workflow, to avoid a back-translated citation drifting from the reader’s own recognizable Tanakh wording.

This analysis extends but does not modify the baseline Romans Language Package. All baseline conventions — script, register, citation format, and the Critical/High/Medium/Low risk framework — remain fully in force.