Linguistic Gap Analysis — Hebrews (English → Hebrew)

Purpose and Scope

This document executes Phase 1 Step 8 of the TRI pipeline for the Hebrews curriculum, destination language Hebrew. It analyzes the linguistic distance between the source theological vocabulary of Hebrews (1–13) and the resources available in Modern/Biblical Hebrew, building on 07_semantic_analysis.md and 08_core_glossary.md, and remaining fully consistent with the baseline Romans translation_memory.json, bible_term_registry.json, and doctrine_risk_registry.json. It covers the entire book, chapter by chapter, per the PRD full-book coverage mandate. Chapters that raise no new gap-analysis issues beyond terms already resolved elsewhere are explicitly marked “reviewed, no new gap” rather than omitted.

This analysis does not re-propose Hebrew renderings already fixed in Section A of the core glossary (baseline TM reuse) or already finalized in Section B/C of the core glossary; it analyzes why those choices are necessary, where the underlying vocabulary gap or semantic crowding lies, and ranks the resulting risks for Phase 2 review routing.

---

Part 1 — Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

For each of the curriculum’s nine core doctrines, this matrix records: available Hebrew resources, their specific weaknesses, and the recommended translation strategy. “Available terms” includes both Biblical Hebrew (BH) and Modern Hebrew (MH) resources where they differ.

1. The Superiority of Christ over Angels, Moses, and the Levitical Priesthood

Available Hebrew terms	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
מלאך (mal’akh, angel); משה (Moshe); כהן/כהן גדול (kohen/kohen gadol)	Tanakh itself calls angelic beings “sons of God” (Gen 6:2, Job 1:6), creating direct terminological overlap with בן האלוהים applied to the Son in ch. 1. Moshe is the most revered human figure in Judaism (Moshe Rabbenu); a superiority argument risks being heard as a demotion of Moses rather than a category-difference claim.	Retain מלאך, משה, כהן גדול exactly (no viable substitutes exist). Compensate entirely through framing: every occurrence of ch. 1–3’s comparative argument must carry an explicit note that the comparison is of category/office, not of moral worth — Moses remains “faithful in all God’s house” (3:2, retained positively) while the Son is “faithful as a son over the house” (a categorically higher relation, not a rebuke of Moses).

2. Christ as the Great High Priest

Available Hebrew terms	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
כהן גדול (kohen gadol); כהן גדול נשגב (superlative form); מלכי־צדק (Melchizedek)	Kohen gadol is an exact, hereditary Aaronic/Levitical office-term (Exodus 28-29) with zero flexibility; Christ (of Judah’s tribe, 7:14) structurally cannot hold this office under the Torah’s own genealogical rules. There is no “generic priest” word in Hebrew broad enough to soften this collision — כהן itself already presupposes Aaronic descent in normal usage.	Do not attempt to invent a softer substitute term (there is none that would not sound evasive). Retain כהן גדול exactly, and require the ch. 7 Melchizedek argument (non-Levitical priestly precedent, Genesis 14/Psalm 110) to be taught explicitly alongside every occurrence of the title, not left implicit.

3. The New Covenant versus the Old

Available Hebrew terms	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
ברית חדשה (Jeremiah 31:31’s own phrase); הברית הישנה/הראשונה; מתיישן / קרוב להתבטל (obsolete/vanishing, 8:13)	ברית is not a neutral legal term in Hebrew — it is bound to Brit Milah and Sinai, i.e., living covenantal Jewish identity. Describing the “first” covenant as מתיישן (“aging/becoming obsolete”) risks being heard as Torah’s abrogation or Israel’s covenantal rejection — among the most supersession-adjacent claims in the entire NT.	Use the fixed Jeremiah 31 phrase ברית חדשה (audience will recognize the citation instantly at Heb 8) and reserve מתיישן/קרוב להתבטל strictly for the sacrificial-administrative system, never for Torah or Israel’s covenant status as such. Mandatory theologian review at every occurrence (already flagged Critical in the term registry); pair with the Jeremiah 31 citation’s own promise that the new covenant is made with the house of Israel, not instead of it.

4. The Once-for-All Atoning Sacrifice

Available Hebrew terms	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
קרבן (korban); להקריב; פעם אחת ולתמיד (once for all); לכפר (to atone); כפורת (mercy seat)	לכפר shares its root כ-פ-ר with יום הכיפורים (Yom Kippur), the single most concentrated annual atonement-observance in Jewish life; “once for all” (פעם אחת ולתמיד) shares its root ת-מ-ד with קרבן הַתָּמִיד, the Mishnah’s continual daily offering — an almost paradoxical root-collision (a “once-for-all” that shares a root with “continual”).	Retain both terms as fixed (no substitutes exist), but attach mandatory translator notes at first occurrence in each chapter clarifying: (a) לכפר here names a completed, unrepeatable priestly act, contrasted with Yom Kippur’s annual repetition; (b) פעם אחת ולתמיד’s root-echo of ha-tamid should be taught as Christ fulfilling and ending the need for the continual offering, not as an ironic clash to be smoothed over.

5. The Danger of Apostasy and Warning Passages

Available Hebrew terms	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
נטישת האמונה (apostasy); תשובה (repentance); לחטוא במזיד (willful sin)	תשובה in mainstream Jewish theology is always available (through prayer, charity, turning) with no closed door; Hebrews’ warning that some cannot be “renewed again to repentance” (6:4-6) and Esau’s failure to find it “though he sought it with tears” (12:17) stand in real tension with this default. מזיד/שוגג is an excellent conceptual match but imports the full weight of Rabbinic legal categories of intentionality.	Retain נטישת האמונה as one single, fixed rendering across all five warning passages (2:1-3; 3:12-19; 6:4-8; 10:26-31; 12:25) — consistency is structurally necessary since the warnings interlock as one argument. Every occurrence of תשובה in this doctrinal context requires a theologian note distinguishing Hebrews’ scope (final, willful, enlightened rejection) from ordinary Jewish teshuvah’s open door, so as not to imply teshuvah itself has been closed off as a general category.

6. Faith of the Old Testament Saints

Available Hebrew terms	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
אמונה (faith); תוקף/ממשות (hypostasis-as-assurance, 11:1); הבטחה (promise); גרים ותושבים (strangers and exiles)	אמונה in ordinary Jewish usage is praxis-oriented (faithfulness demonstrated through mitzvot); ch. 11’s entire argument (forward-looking trust in unseen, future promise) requires a different center of gravity than “faithful observance.”	Retain אמונה per baseline TM (no substitute), but chapter 11 requires a sustained translator framing at its outset establishing that “the faith of the elders” here names trust in a promise not yet possessed, illustrated narratively through each figure, rather than halakhic faithfulness. The genuinely positive resources (גרים ותושבים as a near-exact citation of Genesis 23:4/Leviticus 25:23) should be surfaced explicitly as assets.

7. Perseverance and Assurance

Available Hebrew terms	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
ביטחון (confidence/boldness); נחלה (inheritance); מנוחה/שבתון (rest); מוסר (discipline)	Mainstream Judaism already grants strong covenant-membership-based assurance of a portion in the world to come (“kol Yisrael yesh lahem chelek la’olam haba,” Sanhedrin 10:1); Hebrews replaces this mechanism with faith-in-Messiah-plus-perseverance assurance, paired with severe warnings — a different logic that must be taught as such, not silently substituted. נחלה’s land-allotment sense (Numbers 26:53) risks either flattening into “just heaven” or displacing attachment to Israel’s actual covenantal land-inheritance.	Retain ביטחון distinct from אמונה (baseline explicitly separates these two words; must remain visibly distinct in Hebrews too). Frame נחלה with both/and language — the eternal inheritance extends, rather than replaces, the land-inheritance framework. שבתון/מנוחה must be taught as the goal Shabbat itself points toward, never as relativizing living Sabbath observance for Messianic Jewish readers.

8. Access to God through Christ’s Blood

Available Hebrew terms	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
דם (blood); פרוכת (veil); קודש הקודשים (Most Holy Place); מצפון (conscience); כפורת (mercy seat)	דם must retain full sacrificial-atoning weight, not collapse into a clinical/biological sense (the risk of over-familiarity through everyday Hebrew usage of “dam” in medical contexts). מצפון is a Modern Hebrew philosophical coinage with no Biblical Hebrew ancestor — the Tanakh expresses inner moral awareness through לב (heart), creating a genuine vocabulary gap rather than a crowded-neighborhood problem.	Retain all terms exactly per registry. For מצפון specifically, attach an anchoring translator note connecting it back to the Tanakh’s own לב-vocabulary (e.g., Psalm 51’s “lev tahor,” a clean heart) so readers steeped in Tanakh idiom do not experience the term as a foreign philosophical import disconnected from Scripture’s own moral-interiority language.

9. Christ as Great High Priest / Deity & Sonship substrate (Christology, underlying all doctrines above)

Available Hebrew terms	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
בן האלוהים; אדון; זיו כבודו; חותם עצם מהותו; מהות	No continuous native-Hebrew-speaking Christian theological tradition exists between the apostolic era and Hebrew’s revival, so terms like זיו כבודו / חותם עצם מהותו are late constructions rather than terms with settled centuries-deep usage (contrast with, e.g., Greek or Latin theological vocabularies).	Follow Delitzsch Hebrew NT precedent where available (per baseline’s incarnation-entry model at John 1:14); where no precedent exists (as for 1:3’s dense double phrase), use compound noun constructions transparently built from existing OT vocabulary (זיו, “radiance,” from Daniel 12:3; כבוד, established) rather than coining wholly new terms, and flag every occurrence of 1:3 for mandatory theologian review as the baseline’s Incarnation/Deity-of-Christ conventions require.

---

Part 2 — Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods

2.1 Genuinely Missing Vocabulary (no Biblical Hebrew ancestor; gap must be filled by coinage or compound)

Concept	Gap description	Resolution
conscience (συνείδησις, 9:9, 14; 10:2, 22; 13:18)	Tanakh has no single noun for this; the concept is distributed across לב (heart) usage. מצפון is a 19th-20th century Hebrew revival coinage.	Retain מצפון (functionally necessary, standard in Hebrew NT tradition) with an anchoring note to לב vocabulary.
hypostasis in its 1:3 sense (“exact essence”)	No single pre-existing BH word names “divine essence” abstractly outside later philosophical Hebrew (הוויה, מהות — themselves medieval/modern coinages under Greek/Arabic philosophical influence).	Use מהות (already a settled Modern Hebrew philosophical term) but flag every occurrence for theologian review to prevent readers importing a merely “concept/idea” sense from ordinary MH philosophical usage rather than the specific weight of “God’s own underlying being.”
incarnation as a systematic-theology category (cf. 2:14, “partook of flesh and blood”)	Confirmed already Critical in the baseline glossary; Hebrews reintroduces this gap at 2:14, 17 (Christ “had to be made like his brothers in every respect”). No native term.	Reuse baseline’s התגלמות per TM; extend with periphrastic phrasing modeled on Delitzsch’s “וְהַדָּבָר נִהְיָה בָשָׂר” style where the noun alone under-conveys the event, consistent with baseline guidance.
pioneer/forerunner (ἀρχηγός, 2:10; 12:2)	No natural BH/MH equivalent without either overloading it with unwanted political resonance (חלוץ, the Zionist-Halutz term) or flattening it to a generic “leader.”	Coin via ראש / מוביל rather than חלוץ per glossary Section B; treat as an accepted lower-fidelity compromise, medium-high risk, native-speaker flag sufficient (not full theologian escalation) since no doctrinal claim about Christ’s nature turns on this word alone.

2.2 Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods (term exists, but surrounded by strong competing associations that must be “fenced off”)

Term	Competing association(s) already present in Hebrew	Fencing required
כפר / לכפר (propitiation, 2:17)	Yom Kippur (יום הכיפורים) — the most concentrated religious observance in the Jewish calendar, annually repeated.	Every occurrence must fence the sense as completed, unrepeatable, once-for-all rather than annual/ongoing; pair explicitly with the ephapax vocabulary of ch. 9-10.
קרבן / להקריב (sacrifice, throughout)	Because the Temple no longer stands, contemporary readers encounter these words almost exclusively through Torah-reading rather than lived cultic practice — an unusual reduction in everyday-collision risk relative to most target languages, but the fencing need shifts from “avoid trivialization” to “avoid abstraction” (ensuring the reader still feels the concreteness of literal blood sacrifice, not just a textual memory).
ברית (covenant, book-wide)	Brit Milah (circumcision covenant) and the Sinai covenant — both intensely alive, embodied, identity-constituting.	Fence “new covenant” language so it is heard as fulfillment of Jeremiah 31’s own promise to Israel, never as displacement of Sinai’s legitimacy in its own time (cf. Doctrine Matrix #3 above).
הר ציון (Mount Zion, 12:22)	Root of Tziyonut (Zionism); appears in Hatikvah (Israel’s national anthem); names the contemporary spiritual-national heart of Jerusalem.	Requires the heaviest fencing in the entire book: mandatory theologian review, explicit non-supersessionist framing at every occurrence, and cross-reference to Romans 11’s grafting-in logic so the heavenly, ecclesial “Zion” of 12:22 is never heard as replacing or relativizing the actual, geographic Zion or Israel’s own future hope regarding it.
מולדת (homeland, 11:14, 16)	Contemporary Israeli-national resonance tied to the modern State of Israel.	Fence so the patriarchs’ seeking of a “better country” is read typologically without implying relativization of attachment to the actual Land today.
תשובה (repentance, 6:1, 6; 12:17)	Yom Kippur, the Yamim Nora’im liturgical season, the doctrine that teshuvah’s door is always open.	Fence Hebrews’ scope (a specific warning about willful, enlightened apostasy) from the general availability of teshuvah as a category, per Doctrine Matrix #5.
עבודה (cultic service, 8:5; 9:1, 6, 9, 21; 10:2; 13:10)	The Amidah’s daily “avodah” petition for restored Temple service — an actively prayed-for, not merely historical, hope.	Fence as typologically fulfilled in Christ’s heavenly ministry; must not read as Hebrews opposing or being indifferent to the hope for restored Temple worship, but as reframing where its fulfillment is found.
מנוחה / שבתון (rest, ch. 3-4)	Living, weekly Shabbat observance.	Fence the eschatological “Sabbath-rest” as the goal Shabbat itself signals, not as superseding or relativizing ongoing Sabbath-keeping (especially for Messianic Jewish readers who continue Sabbath observance).
בן האלוהים (Son of God, ch. 1 and throughout)	Two established Tanakh senses (angelic beings; Israel corporately) — crowding here is within Scripture itself, not merely cultural.	Fence explicitly at every ch. 1 occurrence: this is a third, ontological sense, not an extension of either prior category.
כהן גדול (high priest, throughout)	The entire, extremely well-defined Aaronic/Levitical institutional apparatus (genealogy, Temple, Yom Kippur ritual).	Fence via the mandatory Melchizedek (ch. 7) argument at every occurrence, so the reader does not simply reject the title as a category error.

---

Part 3 — Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions

Term	Decision	Rationale
Melchizedek	Transliterate (fixed BH form: מלכי־צדק)	Proper name with an exact, unchangeable Hebrew Bible precedent (Genesis 14:18); no paraphrase possible or needed.
Yeshua	Transliterate (ישוע, never ישו)	Baseline Critical rule; absolute enforcement, carries both doctrinal and dignity stakes (ישו’s slur-adjacent history).
Great High Priest (ἀρχιερέα μέγαν)	Paraphrase via superlative compound (כהן גדול נשגב), not transliteration	Greek superlative construction has no single-word Hebrew equivalent that preserves rhetorical emphasis; a compound noun phrase is required, and must not be collapsed back to plain כהן גדול.
διαθήκη’s dual sense (covenant/testament, 9:16-17)	Neither transliterate nor force a paraphrase into the main text — footnote instead	ברית cannot carry the “last will and testament” legal sense the Greek wordplay exploits; forcing an artificial Hebrew paraphrase into the verse would fabricate a wordplay the target language does not support. A translator note explaining the Greek wordplay is required rather than a lexical solution.
κιβωτός (ark, two referents)	Split into two distinct native Hebrew paraphrases: ארון הברית (covenant ark) vs. תבה (Noah’s vessel)	One Greek word maps to two entirely distinct, already-fixed Hebrew Bible terms; transliteration is neither necessary nor appropriate since native vocabulary already exists for both referents.
ὑπόστασις (two senses, 1:3 vs. 11:1)	Paraphrase into two distinct Hebrew terms (מהות vs. תוקף/ממשות), not a single transliterated loanword	A transliterated “hypostasis” (e.g., היפוסטזיס) would be theologically opaque to the target readership and defeat the purpose of vernacular translation; native paraphrase disambiguated by context is required, with mandatory cross-reference flagging.
ἀγενεαλόγητος (without genealogy, 7:3)	Paraphrase (בלי יחוס משפחתי), not coinage of a single new Hebrew word	The concept is compositional (negation + genealogical-record noun); Hebrew readily supports a transparent phrase, and coining an artificial single-word neologism would obscure rather than clarify the argument.
παρρησία (boldness/confidence, 3:6; 4:16; 10:19, 35)	Reuse existing native term (ביטחון), not transliteration or new coinage	Native vocabulary exists and is already distinguished from אמונה per baseline convention; no gap to fill.
μεσίτης (mediator, 8:6; 9:15; 12:24)	Reuse existing native legal term (מתווך)	Standard Hebrew legal/commercial term for an intermediary; sufficiently precise once paired with explanatory framing about Christ’s dual nature; no transliteration needed.
ἀρχηγός (pioneer/founder, 2:10; 12:2)	Paraphrase (ראש / מוביל), explicitly avoiding the tempting native option חלוץ	חלוץ, while a perfect semantic fit (“pioneer/vanguard”), carries decisive modern Zionist-nationalist historical freight (the Halutzim of early Aliyah) that would import unwanted political resonance into a Christological title; the safer, blander paraphrase is preferred over a semantically richer but culturally loaded option.
ἐφάπαξ / ἅπαξ (“once for all”)	Paraphrase (פעם אחת ולתמיד), not a single-word coinage	No single BH/MH word carries the full “one single time, with permanent, unrepeatable effect” sense; the compound phrase is required, with the ha-tamid root-echo addressed via translator note rather than avoided.
Ἰσραήλ, Δαυίδ, Σιών, Σινά (Israel, David, Zion, Sinai)	Transliterate/use fixed BH toponyms and names exactly (ישראל, דוד, ציון, סיני)	These are the reader’s own scriptural and national vocabulary; any deviation would be both unnecessary and confusing. All cultural-sensitivity handling occurs at the framing level (Part 2 above), not at the lexical-choice level.

General principle applied throughout: transliteration is reserved almost exclusively for proper names (persons, places) with fixed Hebrew Bible precedent. Theological/doctrinal concepts are, without exception, rendered through native or compound Hebrew vocabulary, never through transliterated Greek loanwords, consistent with the baseline’s “never use Romanized transliteration in output” rule and its established practice for terms like “gospel,” “grace,” and “salvation.”

---

Part 4 — Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities in Hebrews

Ranked by combined severity (doctrinal centrality × collision intensity × frequency), for Phase 2 review-routing priority within this curriculum specifically:

1. הר ציון (Mount Zion, 12:22) — Critical. Maximum cultural-political resonance (Zionism, national anthem, contemporary Jerusalem) collides directly with an ecclesial-heavenly referent placed immediately alongside “the assembly [קהילה]” — the single highest-stakes fencing requirement in the book.
2. כהן גדול applied to a non-Levite (throughout, esp. 7:1-28) — Critical. Structurally violates the Torah’s own genealogical premise for priestly legitimacy; requires the Melchizedek argument taught in full at every occurrence, not merely glossed.
3. מתיישן / קרוב להתבטל, “obsolete” (8:13) — Critical. Among the most supersession-adjacent statements in the NT; single mishandled occurrence could read as Torah’s abrogation or Israel’s covenantal rejection.
4. בן האלוהים in ch. 1’s angel-comparison context (1:2-14) — Critical. The Tanakh’s own “sons of God” categories (angels, Israel) sit in the same textual neighborhood as the ontological claim being made, compounding the baseline’s existing Critical rating.
5. זיו כבודו / חותם עצם מהותו (1:3) — Critical. Theologically densest single phrase in the epistle, built on constructed rather than historically settled Hebrew theological vocabulary; highest coinage-fragility risk in the book.
6. לחטוא במזיד, willful sin (10:26) — Critical. Doctrinal stakes (“no further sacrifice remains”) combined with reuse of a precise Rabbinic legal category whose ordinary halakhic implications differ from Hebrews’ absolute finality claim.
7. נטישת האמונה across the five warning passages — Critical. Requires perfect cross-passage consistency; any variant rendering would obscure the epistle’s unified warning architecture, and the concept itself sits against Judaism’s general open-door teshuvah default.
8. ברית old/new contrast (8:7-13; 9:15-18) — High-Critical. Compounded by the διαθήκη covenant/testament wordplay gap (9:16-17), meaning this passage carries both a doctrinal supersession risk and an untranslatable rhetorical device requiring a footnote workaround.
9. תשובה’s limits (6:4-6; 12:17) — High. Direct tension with Judaism’s default assurance of teshuvah’s permanent availability; risk of the passage being read as contradicting a core Jewish theological conviction rather than addressing a narrower category (final apostasy).
10. מולדת / heavenly homeland (11:14, 16) — High. Real risk of relativizing contemporary attachment to the Land if the typological “better country” framing is not carefully bounded.
11. הפגעה / Isaiah 53 intercession echo (9:28’s “bore the sins of many”) — High. Inherits the baseline’s own flagged contested-exegesis risk (collective-Israel vs. individual-Messiah reading of the Servant) at one of the core passage’s own climactic verses.
12. תוקף/ממשות vs. מהות, the double hypostasis (1:3 vs. 11:1) — High. Low frequency (two verses) but high consequence if conflated — a translator or reviewer unaware of the distinction could unintentionally import ch. 1’s essence-of-God sense into ch. 11’s assurance-of-hope sense, or vice versa.
13. עבודה’s Temple-restoration resonance (8:5; 9; 10:2; 13:10) — High. Risk of Hebrews being heard as either indifferent to, or in tension with, the living liturgical hope embedded in the Amidah.
14. כפורת, mercy seat (9:5) — High. Singular term, but singularly loaded (Yom Kippur); the composite claim that Christ is priest, sacrifice, and kapporet simultaneously is easy to leave implicit and lose.
15. פעם אחת ולתמיד’s root-echo of korban ha-tamid — Medium-High. Lower doctrinal stakes than items above, but a subtle, easily-missed internal contradiction-in-appearance (a “once-for-all” that shares a root with “continual”) that requires explicit resolution via translator note or risks reader confusion at a purely linguistic level.

---

Chapter-by-Chapter Coverage Confirmation

Chapter	New gap-analysis issues raised	Status
1	בן האלוהים (angel category), זיו כבודו, חותם עצם מהותו, מהות, אדון, כבוד	Analyzed (Doctrine Matrix #9; Ranked #4, #5, #12)
2	מלאך, התגלמות (2:14, 17), ארחגוס/pioneer, לכפר (2:17), השטן	Analyzed (Doctrine Matrix #1, #4; Part 2.1)
3	משה, קריאה/כלמד, שליח (unique referent), מנוחה/שבתון begins	Analyzed (Doctrine Matrix #1; Part 2.2 Shabbat)
4	מנוחה/שבתון continued, דבר האלוהים, כס החסד, כהן גדול נשגב	Analyzed (Doctrine Matrix #7, #2; Part 3 superlative decision)
5	כהן גדול, שלם/להשלים, מלכי־צדק introduced	Analyzed (Doctrine Matrix #2, #9)
6	תשובה, הבטחה, נטישת האמונה (first major warning)	Analyzed (Doctrine Matrix #5; Ranked #7, #9)
7	מלכי־צדק (full argument), בלי יחוס משפחתי, מעשר, כהונה נצחית, ערבון	Analyzed (Doctrine Matrix #2; Part 3)
8	ברית חדשה/ישנה, מתיישן, משכן, תבנית, צל	Analyzed (Doctrine Matrix #3, #4; Ranked #3, #8)
9 (core passage)	דם, קרבן, להקריב, כפורת, ארון הברית, פרוכת, קודש הקודשים, מצפון, גאולה, טהרה, הזיה, פעם אחת ולתמיד	Analyzed in full (Doctrine Matrix #4, #8; Part 2.1–2.2; Ranked #14, #15)
10	לחטוא במזיד, סליחה/מחילת חטאים, שלם/להשלים, ביטחון, הצהרת האמונה	Analyzed (Doctrine Matrix #4, #5; Ranked #6)
11	תוקף/ממשות, תבה (Noah), הבטחה, גרים ותושבים, מולדת/עיר שבשמים, עקדת יצחק	Analyzed (Doctrine Matrix #6; Ranked #10, #11 [via 9:28 cross-ref], #12; Part 2.1 kibotos split)
12	הר סיני, הר ציון, קהילה (12:23), דם ההזיה/דמו של הבל, מוסר, מלכות שאינה מתמוטטת	Analyzed (Doctrine Matrix #3; Ranked #1)
13	מזבח, מחנה, זבח תודה, הכנסת אורחים, רועה, שותפות, עבודה (13:10)	Analyzed (Part 2.2 avodah; low-risk terms noted, no further gap issues — reviewed)

All thirteen chapters of Hebrews have been reviewed for linguistic gap issues; no chapter is silently omitted.

---

Summary Recommendations for Phase 2

1. Enforce the Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix strategies above as binding constraints during segment translation, not merely as background notes.
2. Treat the “crowded neighborhood” fencing requirements in Part 2.2 as mandatory translator-note triggers, in addition to (not instead of) the existing Critical/High risk-tier escalation rules in 12_ai_translation_requirements.md.
3. Apply the transliteration-vs-paraphrase table in Part 3 as a lookup reference during new-term encounters in Phase 2 Step 16, so ad hoc decisions are not made independently by parallel workers.
4. Route all fifteen ranked ambiguities in Part 4 to mandatory human theologian review regardless of their individual per-term risk tier elsewhere, given their combined severity in this specific curriculum context.
5. This document, together with 08_core_glossary.md, should be treated as the authoritative basis for any future translation memory versioning specific to the Hebrews curriculum.

---

This analysis extends, and remains fully consistent with, the baseline Romans Language Package. It does not contradict any Section A (TM Reuse) term and defers to the baseline wherever overlap exists.