Linguistic Gap Analysis
Linguistic Gap Analysis — Acts 1–28 (English → Hebrew)
Purpose
This analysis identifies, for the entire book of Acts, where Modern Hebrew’s existing vocabulary is an asset, where it is a liability (crowded semantic neighborhoods that pull meaning toward a false-but-plausible reading), and where it is simply absent (missing vocabulary requiring paraphrase or careful coinage). It extends the baseline Romans Language Package’s method to the nine curriculum doctrines of Acts and to the core passage, Acts 2:1-41 (Pentecost), and surveys the full book chapter-range so that no chapter’s load-bearing vocabulary is silently skipped. It is the linguistic foundation beneath 07_semantic_analysis.md and 08_core_glossary.md, and precedes the version-increment of translation_memory.json.
Hebrew’s situation differs structurally from most target languages in this pipeline: the gap is almost never a bare absence of vocabulary (Hebrew is unusually rich in relevant religious terminology, being the Tanakh’s own language). The dominant risk pattern instead is semantic drift and crowding — a word that is doctrinally exact in Biblical Hebrew but has been captured by Modern Hebrew, Rabbinic tradition, or Israeli civic/political discourse for a narrower or different sense. Acts intensifies this baseline pattern because its narrative setting is the Land of Israel and the Diaspora synagogue world itself, so nearly every scene activates existing Jewish categories (Shavuot, tevilah, brit milah, teshuvah, Sanhedrin, HaShem) rather than introducing foreign ones.
1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix
For each of the nine curriculum doctrines: the available Hebrew resources, their specific weaknesses, and the recommended handling strategy. Baseline-inherited terms are marked (baseline); Acts-specific terms are marked (new).
1.1 The Holy Spirit and Pentecost
| Available Hebrew terms | Weakness | Recommended strategy |
|---|---|---|
| רוח הקודש (baseline, Critical) | Rabbinic tradition treats Ruach HaKodesh as impersonal influence, and holds (Yoma 9b) that it departed Israel after the last prophets | Retain baseline rendering; every Acts occurrence of filling (2:4; 4:8,31) must be taught as the opposite claim — a permanent, personal, currently-active Spirit, not a departed one |
| חג השבועות (new, Critical) | Not a false-friend but the literal referent — risk is under-teaching, not mistranslation: readers may see only a calendar note and miss the Sinai-Torah-giving/Spirit-outpouring typology | Explicit typological teaching note required at every occurrence (Acts 2:1; 20:16) |
| התמלאו ברוח הקודש (new, Critical) | Repeated, occasion-specific filling (Acts) risks appearing to contradict Romans 8’s once-for-all indwelling if untaught | Teach both categories together: indwelling (permanent) + filling (repeated empowerment) are complementary, not competing |
| אשפוך את רוחי (new, High) | None — direct Joel MT citation; risk is only accuracy of citation | Require exact Masoretic wording; no paraphrase permitted |
| מתת רוח הקודש (new, High) vs. מתנות רוחניות (baseline, Medium) | Risk of conflating the singular indwelling-gift with plural subsequent enablements | Two distinct headwords enforced in translation memory; never interchange |
| כוח האלוהים (baseline, Medium) | Must never be גבורה (Kabbalistic sefirah) | Retain forbidden-substitution rule from baseline for all Acts miracle-power contexts (1:8; 4:33; 19:11) |
Overall assessment: vocabulary is not missing — it is unusually rich (Shavuot, Ruach HaKodesh, nevu’ah are all native, positive Tanakh categories) — but every term is a crowded neighborhood requiring active fencing against its settled Rabbinic sense (impersonal influence, departed Spirit, wholly future last days).
1.2 The Gospel to Jews and Gentiles
| Available Hebrew terms | Weakness | Recommended strategy |
|---|---|---|
| טהור / טמא (new, Critical) | Precise, correct kashrut vocabulary; risk is scope — appears to abrogate Torah’s dietary law generally | Every occurrence (Acts 10-11, 15) scoped explicitly to Jew-Gentile table fellowship, never generalized |
| גויים (baseline, High) | Mildly-to-strongly pejorative colloquial shade in everyday Modern Hebrew/Yiddish-inflected usage | Retain baseline rendering (no viable substitute); rely on surrounding dignity-affirming context, especially Acts 10-11, 15 |
| ירא אלוהים (new, Medium) | Reads as generic piety, missing Luke’s specific sociological category (uncircumcised synagogue-adjacent Gentile) | Add descriptive gloss at first occurrence (Acts 10) |
| אור לגויים (new, Medium) | Well-known secular/Zionist civic slogan (“light unto the nations” as Israel’s self-described national mission) | Must be anchored to Isaiah 49:6 and the specific missiological-christological argument of Acts 13:47, distinguished from the national-destiny reading |
| (Isaiah 6 hardening motif, Acts 28:26-27) | Long history of supersessionist weaponization | Must invoke baseline Romans 11 “partial hardening… remnant” framework explicitly, never left to stand alone |
Overall assessment: the central gap here is not vocabulary but narrative scoping discipline — Hebrew supplies exact, evocative terms (tahor/tamei, or la-goyim) that are too resonant with non-target senses (halakhic dietary law in full; Zionist civic identity) and require sentence-level fencing every time.
1.3 Repentance and Baptism
| Available Hebrew terms | Weakness | Recommended strategy |
|---|---|---|
| תשובה (new, High/Critical) | Cherished, self-effected Jewish category (Rambam’s Hilchot Teshuvah) not intrinsically tied to a mediator | Teach as continuous with, but Messianically specified beyond, ordinary teshuvah; always pair with the specific “in Jesus’ name” clause of Acts 2:38, 3:19 |
| טבילה (new, Critical) | Existing associations: (a) ritual mikveh purification, (b) proselyte conversion-immersion (implying leaving Jewishness) | Never leave unqualified; always attach “בשם ישוע/המשיח” per the forbidden-substitution rule |
| סליחת החטאים (new, Medium) | Strong positive Yom Kippur selichot resonance — an asset, but risks implying the annual ritual cycle rather than the one-time mechanism through Jesus’ name | Emphasize mechanism (through the Name) rather than let the liturgical echo stand alone |
| טבילה ברוח הקודש / טבילת מים (new, High) | Both share the root טבל; risk of the two collapsing into a single undifferentiated concept | Enforce grammatical/prepositional distinction (ב-רוח vs. מים) at every occurrence, esp. Acts 1:5, 11:16, 19:1-6 |
Overall assessment: this is the doctrine with the highest collision density between doctrinally-correct vocabulary and existing ritual categories in the whole book — every available term (teshuvah, tevilah, selichah) is simultaneously the most accurate available word and the most loaded with a competing existing ritual meaning.
1.4 The Church as Community
| Available Hebrew terms | Weakness | Recommended strategy |
|---|---|---|
| קהילה (baseline, Critical) | Must never be עדה (Israel’s own Torah-congregation term) | Retain baseline forbidden substitution; reinforced by the Jerusalem church’s own Jewish-majority composition through much of Acts |
| משיחיים vs. נוצרים (new, Critical) | נוצרים carries centuries of historical baggage (Gentile Christendom, at times antagonistic to Jewish identity) | Default to משיחיים; if נוצרים used for platform reasons, mandatory explanatory note at first occurrence |
| שרות השולחנות (new, Medium) | No fixed one-word Hebrew equivalent for the proto-deacon office | Use descriptive phrase; resist anachronistic loanword (“דיאקון”) |
| זקנים / לרעות (new, Medium) | Positive continuity with synagogue/Sanhedrin eldership risks implying simple identity rather than a distinct new office | Clarify distinct ecclesial office in surrounding context, first occurrence Acts 11:30, 14:23 |
| מעשה ידי אדם (new, Medium) | Could read as denying Temple legitimacy outright | Frame per Stephen’s own prophetic-scriptural argument (echoing 1 Kings 8:27), not as anti-Temple polemic |
Overall assessment: vocabulary gaps here are structural (no native word for “deacon”-type office) rather than doctrinal; the doctrinal risk cluster is concentrated in the single term “Christians”/משיחיים-נוצרים.
1.5 Apostolic Authority and Miracles
| Available Hebrew terms | Weakness | Recommended strategy |
|---|---|---|
| שליח (baseline, Medium) | Modern secular overlay (Jewish Agency emissary) | Context must establish NT sense; unchanged from baseline |
| עד / עדים (new, Medium) | Strong forensic-legal resource (Deut 19:15) but does not natively carry “testify at cost of life” | Teach the semantic extension explicitly, anchored in Stephen’s death (ch. 7) |
| סמיכת ידיים (new, Medium) | Genuine parallel to Rabbinic semichah ordination-chain, but not identical (different authority source/transmission theology) | Teach overlap and difference together, not simple equation |
| הקדוש והצדיק (new, Critical) | הקדוש directly echoes “HaKadosh Baruch Hu” — the most common Jewish reverential divine title | Flag every occurrence (Acts 3:14) for theologian review; treat with the same weight as baseline’s deity_of_christ |
| שר החיים (new, Medium) | No fixed prior Bible-translation precedent | Deliberate coined rendering; requires theologian sign-off before adoption as fixed |
| ראש פינה (new, Medium) | Existing, but contested messianic prooftext (Psalm 118:22) | Retain exact citation wording; note contested exegetical history |
Overall assessment: the central risk is a single Critical title collision (Holy and Righteous One) sitting atop an otherwise well-served vocabulary set (witness, ordination, cornerstone all have workable native resources).
1.6 Persecution and Bold Witness
| Available Hebrew terms | Weakness | Recommended strategy |
|---|---|---|
| עֹז (new, Medium) | Colloquial חוצפה alternative is evocative (“holy chutzpah”) but too casual a register | Retain עֹז as primary; note חוצפה only as a translator’s aside, never in-text |
| רדיפה (new, Medium) | Standard, unproblematic | No special handling needed |
| בעבור השם / לשם (new, High) | הַשֵּׁם is the standard reverential substitute-address for God (avoiding the Tetragrammaton) | Context must disambiguate that the referent is specifically Jesus’ name, not a generic pious God-reference |
| הרגתם בידי אנשים מופקרים (new, High) | Historically weaponized as a collective “deicide” charge against the Jewish people | Must be framed explicitly as a specific-generation/leadership indictment (prophetic register), never collective guilt |
| סקילה (new, Low) | Precise halakhic term; narrative irony (a Jewish court applying it to Stephen) worth noting | Contextual note only, not a translation risk |
Overall assessment: vocabulary is adequate throughout; the acute risk is entirely historical-theological framing around one clause (2:23/7:52’s crucifixion-responsibility language), not lexical choice.
1.7 Conversion of Paul
| Available Hebrew terms | Weakness | Recommended strategy |
|---|---|---|
| כלי נבחר (new, High) | Inherits baseline election’s individual/corporate scope tension | Present as concrete narrative precedent for individual election (reinforcing Romans 9 teaching) |
| קנאי לאלוהים (new, Medium) | Positive (Phinehas-type zeal) and negative (historical Zealot movement) resonances both live | Frame as sincere-but-misdirected zeal, later reoriented — not a model to imitate as such |
| כוח השטן (new, Medium) | Tanakh’s ha-Satan is a more limited accusing/prosecutorial angelic office than the NT’s fully personalized cosmic adversary | Teach as a genuine conceptual development, not assumed continuous |
| חזון מן השמים (new, Low) | Standard, no risk | No special handling needed |
Overall assessment: no missing vocabulary; risk is entirely in teaching the delta between existing Jewish categories (zealotry, ha-Satan) and their NT intensification/redirection.
1.8 Justification apart from the Law
| Available Hebrew terms | Weakness | Recommended strategy |
|---|---|---|
| ההצדקה (baseline, Critical) | Ordinary Modern Hebrew “hatzdakah” = rationalizing/excuse-making | Retain baseline’s mandatory “על ידי אמונה” qualifier at every Acts occurrence (13:39) |
| תורה (baseline, Critical) | Beloved covenant gift, not a burden, in Jewish self-understanding | Framing caution intensifies at Acts 13:39, 15:5, 21:20-24 (Paul’s own continued observance is a key corrective) |
| מילה / ברית מילה (new, Critical) | One of Judaism’s most central covenant-markers | Council’s ruling scoped strictly to Gentile-inclusion requirements; never framed as touching Jewish believers’ own covenant sign (reinforced narratively at 16:3, 21:20-26) |
| נדר נזיר (new, Medium) | None significant; positive corrective data-point | Use to counter antinomian misreadings directly |
| הדרך (new, High) | Genuine historical self-designation (asset), but modern dilution risk toward generic “spiritual path”/New-Age language | Anchor explicitly to proclamation about Yeshua at every occurrence |
| כת (new, Medium) | Strong pejorative “cult” connotation in Modern Hebrew | Preserve deliberately as Tertullus’s hostile framing (24:5), never the movement’s self-description |
| סוכת דוד (new, Medium) | Direct Amos 9:11 MT citation | Exact citation wording required |
Overall assessment: this doctrine sits at the single highest concentration of Critical terms in the book (ברית מילה, תורה, ההצדקה together) precisely because it is argued narratively through the Jerusalem Council’s own most sensitive covenant-identity vocabulary.
1.9 The Great Commission Fulfilled
| Available Hebrew terms | Weakness | Recommended strategy |
|---|---|---|
| עלייתו השמימה (new, High) | עלייה (aliyah) overwhelmingly = Jewish immigration to Israel in Modern Hebrew | השמימה qualifier is mandatory at every occurrence, never dropped for brevity |
| להשיב את המלכות לישראל (new, High) | Ties to the live, culturally loaded question of Israel’s national restoration | Present Jesus’ deferral (times/seasons) as neither confirming nor denying a future national dimension; flag date-setting or political mapping as misapplication |
| השבת הכל לקדמותו (new, Critical — forbidden substitution) | תיקון עולם is the obvious-seeming but forbidden alternative (Lurianic/social-activist connotation) | Never substitute תיקון עולם; enforce at validation stage |
| ללא מפריע / בלי מעצור (new, Low) | None significant | No special handling |
| אור לגויים (see 1.2) | Cross-listed; Zionist civic-slogan collision | Same fencing as above |
Overall assessment: the risk concentration here is civic/national vocabulary collision (aliyah, restoring the kingdom to Israel, light to the nations) — Hebrew’s Zionist/national register is unusually active precisely where Acts’ eschatological-missionary vocabulary needs to operate, more than in any other target language in this pipeline.
2. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods
Unlike most Language Packages, Hebrew’s dominant gap-type is crowding, not absence. This section separates the two categories explicitly, since they require opposite mitigation strategies (paraphrase/coinage for absence; fencing/scoping for crowding).
2.1 Genuinely Missing Vocabulary (requires paraphrase or coinage)
| Concept | Why no native term exists | Resolution |
|---|---|---|
| Incarnation (theological category, underlying Acts’ Christology though not directly re-narrated) | No continuous native-Hebrew Christian community existed to coin settled vocabulary between the apostolic era and Hebrew’s revival (baseline note, retained) | התגלמות (baseline coinage), retained for cross-document consistency |
| Author/Prince of Life (ἀρχηγὸς τῆς ζωῆς, 3:15) | No fixed prior Hebrew Bible-translation precedent for this specific title | שר החיים — deliberate translator’s coinage, requires theologian sign-off before fixed adoption |
| ”Christians” as a distinct communal label (11:26) | First-century phenomenon of a new label for the movement; no pre-existing Hebrew word carried this precise sense | משיחיים (coined/adapted from משיח); נוצרים exists but is rejected as primary for doctrinal reasons (see 2.2) |
| Table-service/proto-deacon office (διακονία, 6:1-2) | The office itself is a new ecclesial development without a pre-existing Jewish structural equivalent | שרות השולחנות — descriptive phrase, not single-word coinage |
| ”Sect” in its hostile forensic sense as applied to the Way (24:5) | Existing כת carries the needed pejorative charge but was not originally coined for this specific legal-accusation context | Reuse כת but flag explicitly as the accuser’s voice, not narrator’s or community’s self-understanding |
Note: the list of genuinely missing vocabulary is short. Acts, set within a first-century Jewish and Jewish-Diaspora world, activates existing categories far more often than it requires new coinage — the opposite pattern from Language Packages serving cultures with no biblical-religious vocabulary at all.
2.2 Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods (require active fencing, not new coinage)
These are cases where Hebrew’s vocabulary is too rich — an existing, vivid, well-known term pulls the reader toward a specific non-target sense that must be actively excluded by context, qualifiers, or translator notes.
| Term | Competing occupant of the semantic space | Fencing strategy |
|---|---|---|
| צדקה (would-be righteousness) | Modern Hebrew “charity” | Baseline forbidden substitution; use צדק instead (unchanged) |
| קידוש (would-be sanctification) | Shabbat/holiday wine-blessing ritual | Baseline forbidden substitution; use התקדשות (unchanged) |
| עדה (would-be church) | Torah’s term for assembled Israel | Baseline forbidden substitution; use קהילה (unchanged) |
| השגחה bare (would-be providence) | Kosher supervision certification label | Baseline forbidden substitution; use השגחה פרטית (unchanged) |
| גבורה (would-be power of God) | Kabbalistic sefirah | Baseline forbidden substitution; use כוח (unchanged) |
| תיקון עולם (would-be cosmic restoration, Acts 3:21) | Lurianic Kabbalah / contemporary social-justice slogan | New forbidden substitution; use השבת הכל לקדמותו |
| עלייה bare (would-be ascension) | Jewish immigration to Israel (aliyah) | Mandatory qualifier השמימה at every occurrence |
| אור לגויים (would-be missionary title, Acts 13:47) | Israeli civic/Zionist self-description (“light unto the nations”) | Explicit Isaiah 49:6 + Acts 13:47 anchoring at every occurrence; never left as a bare slogan |
| טבילה bare (would-be baptism) | Ordinary mikveh purification; proselyte conversion-immersion | Mandatory “בשם ישוע/המשיח” qualifier every occurrence |
| תשובה bare (would-be repentance) | Self-effected Rabbinic teshuvah without a mediator | Pair with the specific Messianic mechanism (Jesus’ name) at first occurrence in each passage |
| הקדוש (within “Holy and Righteous One,” 3:14) | “HaKadosh Baruch Hu” — the most common Jewish reverential divine title | Theologian-review flag every occurrence; teach as the same Critical move as baseline’s deity_of_christ |
| הַשֵּׁם (within “suffering for the Name,” 5:41) | The standard reverential substitute for the Tetragrammaton | Context must disambiguate the referent as Jesus’ name specifically |
| כת (would-be “sect”) | “Cult” in ordinary Modern Hebrew usage | Preserve only as the accuser’s hostile voice (24:5), never the movement’s self-understanding |
| קנאי (would-be “zealous for God”) | The historical Zealot movement / contemporary political “zealotry” connotations | Frame explicitly as sincere-but-misdirected, pre-conversion |
| מילה / ברית (within circumcision, covenant contexts) | Judaism’s most central covenant-identity markers | Council-ruling scope restricted explicitly to Gentile-inclusion requirements only |
Pattern observed: every crowded-neighborhood term in this list is lexically correct — none is a mistranslation in the ordinary sense. The risk is entirely that Hebrew’s living religious and civic culture has already assigned these words active, well-known jobs, and Acts is asking them to do a related but distinct job simultaneously. This requires discipline at the sentence and footnote level far more than at the glossary-selection level.
3. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions
| Term | Decision | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Pentecost | Paraphrase → חג השבועות (not a transliteration of “Pentecost”) | The Greek name simply names the existing Hebrew festival; using a transliterated “Pentekoste”-style loanword would be a foreign import for a concept the reader already owns natively |
| Messiah/Christ | Neither — established native term משיח retained | Already fully native; no transliteration or paraphrase needed (baseline) |
| Sanhedrin | Transliteration-as-loanword → סנהדרין | Precise existing historical/institutional Hebrew term (itself originally a Greek loan long since naturalized); no paraphrase improves on it |
| Abba | Retained as ordinary Hebrew אבא (baseline; not a special transliteration decision in Hebrew, unlike other target languages) | Already the native Modern Hebrew word for “Dad”; opposite risk profile from other languages — under-exoticized rather than over-exoticized |
| ”The Way” (ἡ ὁδός) | Paraphrase → הדרך | A direct, natural Hebrew calque already carries the necessary self-designation weight; no transliteration needed |
| ”Christians” | Paraphrase/coinage → משיחיים (preferred) vs. transliteration-adjacent loan נוצרים (existing but flagged) | משיחיים derives transparently from משיח and preserves Jewish-identity continuity; נוצרים, while itself a native (not transliterated) Hebrew word, carries the unwanted historical-distance connotation |
| Author/Prince of Life (ἀρχηγός) | Paraphrase (coined) → שר החיים | No Greek term worth transliterating; Hebrew’s own royal/princely vocabulary (שר) is more communicative than any loan would be |
| Holy and Righteous One | Direct calque/paraphrase → הקדוש והצדיק | Both components are native theological vocabulary; a transliteration would be nonsensical here — the risk is in the calque’s echo of an existing divine title, not in any transliteration choice |
| Restore all things (ἀποκατάστασις) | Paraphrase → השבת הכל לקדמותו (explicitly NOT the tempting near-transliteration/coinage תיקון עולם) | A plausible coinage exists but is forbidden due to its Kabbalistic/activist capture; the safer paraphrase avoids that capture entirely |
| Circumcision | Native term retained → מילה / ברית מילה | No transliteration considered; this is Judaism’s own vocabulary for its own covenant sign |
| Nazirite vow | Native term retained → נדר נזיר | Existing precise halakhic-historical term; no transliteration needed |
| ”Sect” (αἵρεσις) | Native term retained (with caution) → כת | A short native word already carries the needed pejorative charge; no transliteration adds value |
| Ascension | Paraphrase (not bare transliteration or bare native aliyah) → עלייתו השמימה | Bare עלייה alone (native) would misfire toward the Zionist-immigration sense; the qualifying paraphrase is required, not a transliteration |
| Tongues (ἑτέραι γλῶσσαι) | Native descriptive phrase → לשונות אחרות | No transliteration considered; existing Hebrew vocabulary for “other/foreign languages” is precise and sufficient |
| Sign of the Tetragrammaton contexts (e.g., יום ה׳, הקורא בשם ה׳) | Direct Masoretic citation retained, not paraphrased | Any deviation from the existing Hebrew Bible’s own wording would sever the deliberate intertextual argument Peter’s speech depends on |
General rule derived: Hebrew almost never requires true transliteration (foreign-sound loanwords) for theological vocabulary in Acts — the language’s own resources are sufficient in nearly every case. The recurring decision is instead paraphrase-with-qualifier vs. bare native term, because the bare native term is so often already claimed by a rival modern or Rabbinic sense.
4. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities (Full Book)
Ranked by combined severity (doctrinal centrality × likelihood of default misreading), drawing on all chapters of Acts.
-
“Call on the name of the Lord” applied to Jesus (Acts 2:21, 36; the core passage’s climax). The Joel 3:5 MT formula is originally YHWH-directed; Peter’s argument depends on readers making the identical move Paul makes in Romans 10:13. If the seam between v.21 (citation) and v.36 (application) is not held tightly, the sermon’s entire christological argument can be missed or softened. Critical.
-
Circumcision / ברית מילה scope at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15). The single highest-density collision between Acts’ central narrative argument and Judaism’s most central covenant-identity marker; a scoping failure here risks either (a) reading the Council as abolishing Jewish covenant practice, or (b) reading Gentile inclusion as requiring it after all — both defeat the passage. Critical.
-
Clean/unclean (טהור/טמא) in Peter’s vision and its application (Acts 10-11). Precisely correct kashrut vocabulary applied to a Torah-relativizing point about table fellowship; the highest-risk term in the book for triggering an over-generalized “Torah abolished” reading if left unscoped. Critical.
-
“Holy and Righteous One” applied to Jesus (Acts 3:14). Direct verbal echo of “HaKadosh Baruch Hu”; doctrinally exact but among the most theologically dense single phrases in the book for a Hebrew reader’s existing devotional vocabulary. Critical.
-
Restore all things / restore the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6; 3:21). Two related but distinct eschatological questions, both activating live Israeli national-political resonance (especially 1:6’s “restore the kingdom to Israel,” which a contemporary Hebrew reader cannot help but hear against present-day headlines). Requires the most careful non-date-setting, non-political-mapping framing in the book. High-Critical.
-
Crucifixion-responsibility language (Acts 2:23; 7:52). Historically weaponized as collective deicide charge; must be re-anchored as prophetic indictment of a specific generation/leadership by a Jew addressing fellow Jews. High, elevated by history of harm.
-
Christians: משיחיים vs. נוצרים (Acts 11:26). A single lexical choice governing the entire register of Jewish-Gentile identity-continuity for the whole document set going forward; inconsistency here would be immediately visible and confusing across every subsequent lesson. Critical for consistency management even though the doctrinal content itself is not in dispute.
-
Baptism (טבילה) left unqualified (throughout, esp. Acts 2:38, 8:36-38, 19:1-6). Risk of collapsing into either ordinary mikveh purification or proselyte conversion-immersion (implying leaving Jewishness) if the “in Jesus’ name” qualifier is ever dropped for stylistic economy. Critical, recurring at high frequency.
-
Ascension (עלייתו השמימה) with the aliyah qualifier dropped (Acts 1:9-11). A single missed שמימה in a hurried translation pass would produce an immediate, jarring misread toward Jewish immigration language. High, low-frequency but severe-if-triggered.
-
Isaiah 6 hardening motif at the book’s close (Acts 28:26-27). Concludes the entire book on Israel’s partial unbelief; without the Romans 11 “partial/remnant” framing actively supplied, this is the single passage most exposed to a supersessionist misreading precisely because it is the last word the reader receives. Critical, elevated by structural position (final impression).
-
“Light for the Gentiles” (Acts 13:47) colliding with Israeli civic self-description. Risk is not doctrinal confusion so much as a category-substitution: the reader supplies the familiar national-destiny meaning instead of the missiological-christological one, without necessarily noticing the substitution has occurred. Medium-High, insidious because it doesn’t feel like an error.
-
“Zealous for God” (Acts 22:3) read as endorsement rather than diagnosis. Given the weight of religious-nationalist zeal-language in contemporary Israeli discourse, a reader could take Paul’s self-description as a positive model rather than the pre-conversion condition later reoriented. Medium, context-dependent.
-
Determined plan and foreknowledge (Acts 2:23) collapsing sovereignty and responsibility into only one pole. A single clause holding two truths (God’s fixed plan; human guilt) in tension; either half dropped changes the doctrine. High, concentrated in one verse but foundational to the doctrine of providence across the book.
-
“The Way” (הדרך) diluting into generic spiritual-path language (throughout, esp. Acts 9:2; 19:9,23; 24:14). Low per-instance severity but high cumulative risk given its ~7 occurrences and its function as the movement’s own self-designation; repeated under-anchoring compounds. Medium, cumulative.
-
Sect (כת) mistaken for the narrator’s or community’s own self-understanding rather than the accuser’s hostile label (Acts 24:5). Localized to a single scene but easy to miss without an explicit voice-attribution note. Medium, localized.
5. Summary Assessment
Hebrew’s linguistic relationship to Acts is the inverse of the typical Language Package problem: this is not a language short on religious vocabulary needing invention, but a language whose vocabulary is already fully occupied by rich, live, and sometimes rival meanings — Rabbinic, liturgical, halakhic, and modern-Zionist-civic — that Acts’ narrative, set substantially within the same Jewish and Land-of-Israel world, cannot avoid activating. The Step 1 deliverables downstream (07_semantic_analysis.md, 08_core_glossary.md) must therefore weight fencing and scoping instructions at least as heavily as term selection itself; for the large majority of terms in this analysis, the correct Hebrew word was never in doubt — the correct boundary around it was.
This analysis, together with 07_semantic_analysis.md and 08_core_glossary.md, constitutes the linguistic foundation for the Acts translation_memory.json version increment and the Acts-specific extension of doctrine_risk_registry.json.