Linguistic Gap Analysis — Jude (English → Hebrew)

0. Purpose and Method

This document executes PRD Phase 1 Step 8 for the Jude curriculum: a systematic linguistic gap analysis identifying (a) where Hebrew has a doctrine-vocabulary deficit requiring coinage or compound phrasing, (b) where Hebrew’s existing vocabulary is doctrinally rich but semantically crowded and must be fenced against neighboring senses, (c) where transliteration is preferable to paraphrase (and vice versa), and (d) a ranked list of Jude’s highest-risk ambiguities for Phase 2 routing.

This analysis governs and precedes the Core Glossary (08) and Term Registry entries for Jude; it does not contradict them, and every recommendation here is already reflected in those downstream artifacts. All renderings inherited from the baseline Romans translation_memory.json are treated as fixed and non-negotiable; this document analyzes new gaps specific to Jude and the interaction between Jude’s new vocabulary and the baseline’s existing term assignments.

Full-book coverage confirmation: Jude is a single chapter of 25 verses. Every verse (1:1–1:25) has been surveyed for this analysis. No verse is silently omitted; verses contributing no new gap-analysis content beyond already-cataloged terms are folded into the relevant doctrine section below with an explicit “reviewed, no new gap” note.

---

1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

Doctrine	Available Hebrew Terms	Weaknesses / Collision Risks	Recommended Strategy
Contending for the Faith Once Delivered (1:3, 1:20)	אמונה (emunah, reused); להיאבק (new, coined for ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι); שנמסרה כבר פעם אחת (new compound for ἅπαξ παραδοθείσῃ); קדוש (superlative, 1:20)	(1) אמונה defaults in Jewish usage to praxis-oriented faithfulness (mitzvot-observance), not a fixed transmitted doctrinal deposit — Jude’s dominant objective sense is under-signaled by the bare word. (2) The מ־ס־ר root chosen for “once for all delivered” is a genuine asset (echoing Avot 1:1’s Sinai-transmission formula) but risks the OPPOSITE error: implying apostolic teaching is one more link in an open, developing Mesorah chain rather than a CLOSED deposit. (3) The superlative “most holy faith” (1:20) risks importing קֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים (Holy of Holies) imagery if rendered with a construct-superlative rather than a plain intensifier.	Reuse אמונה per baseline but attach a mandatory translator/footnote disambiguation flag distinguishing the objective “the faith” (1:3, 1:20) from the subjective-trust sense dominant in Romans. Retain the Sinai-echo phrasing for “once for all delivered” as a positive teaching asset, but pair it with explicit closed-deposit language (“מסורה שנחתמה,” a sealed/closed transmission) in surrounding teaching material, not left to the phrase alone. Render the superlative with the plain intensifier מְאֹד, never a construct chain resembling קֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים.
Judgment on Ungodly False Teachers (1:4, 8, 10–13, 15–16, 18–19)	רשעים/רשעה (new, resha’im/rish’ah); גזר-דין (new, κρίμα); משפט (new, κρίσις); זימה (new); כופרים (new); מטמאים (new); אדונות (new); נכבדים (new); מגדפים (new); חולמים; נשחתים; לצים; מתלוננים; תאוות; נפשיים (new)	(1) רשעים risks flattening into generic “wicked/sinners” (חוטאים-adjacent) if the specific God-directed irreverence sense of ἀσεβής is not held. (2) גזר-דין/משפט is a genuine positive doubling (Yom HaDin resonance) but the two Hebrew terms must never be interchanged, or Jude’s own two-tier judgment vocabulary (a specific pronounced sentence vs. the general judgment process) collapses into one. (3) כופרים is doctrinally exact but is one of the most religiously freighted labels available in Hebrew (denial of a foundational article of faith) — a severe risk of over-reading or reader offense if introduced without scaffolding. (4) מטמאים shares its root with טָמֵא (ritual impurity); Jude’s defilement is moral/sexual, and Levitical ritual-purity categories must not bleed in. (5) נפשיים (soulish) risks the OPPOSITE problem of most Hebrew terms in this glossary: נֶפֶש is positively loaded (Genesis 2:7), so the negative “merely natural, unregenerate” sense is entirely context-dependent and easily lost.	Maintain the גזר-דין/משפט split rigorously across every occurrence. Introduce כופרים only with an explicit teaching note distinguishing “denying Christ’s lordship” from the weightier communal connotation of being formally labeled a כופר in later Rabbinic usage. Explicitly gloss מטמאים as moral, not ritual, defilement at first occurrence. Anchor נפשיים’s negative sense to its co-text (“not having the Spirit,” 1:19) in every instance rather than relying on the word alone.
Old Testament Warnings as Types (Israel, Angels, Sodom) (1:5–7, 9, 11)	עם (new, laos/Israel type); מלאכים; מעון; סדום ועמורה; הזנו/זנות; לאות ולדוגמה; אש עולם; מיכאל שר המלאכים; השטן; התעמת בטענות; יגער בך אדוני; דרך קין; תועה בדרך בלעם; מריבת קורח	(1) עם must be fenced against a generic “nation/people” reading — this is specifically Israel as covenant-people, and the point of the type (initial deliverance from Egypt did not guarantee final perseverance for unbelievers among them) is easily lost if עם reads as merely ethnic-national. (2) השטן carries a scope-shift from Job’s limited adversarial court-prosecutor figure toward a fully personalized cosmic-evil figure; a Hebrew-speaking reader’s default Job-shaped mental model may under-read the NT sense. (3) The Michael/devil “dispute” (1:9) uses the same Greek root (διακρίνω) that recurs in 1:22’s “waver” — a serious crowded-neighborhood risk (see §3 below). (4) The three-figure OT rebellion triad (Cain, Balaam, Korah, 1:11) is richly shared territory, but the typological application (mercenary false teaching, rejection of appointed authority) must be argued, not assumed self-evident from the names alone.	Gloss עם at first occurrence as “the covenant people delivered from Egypt” to block the generic-nation reading. Flag השטן with an explicit note on the Job-to-NT scope-shift. Enforce the mandatory dispute/waver fencing (see §3, §5). Provide brief typological glosses alongside each of the three OT rebellion-names in teaching material rather than assuming the connection is self-evident.
Mercy and Rescue of the Wavering (1:2, 21–23)	רחמים (new, deliberately distinct from חסד); המפקפקים (new); הושיעו (reused root, ישע); חוטפים; ביראה/בזהירות; כתונת; מגואלה	(1) רחמים vs חסד is a genuine and necessary fence (see §3) — without it, Jude’s separate mercy-thread collapses into the baseline’s grace vocabulary. (2) המפקפקים must be kept lexically distinct from 1:9’s dispute-sense of the same Greek root, or the pastoral tone of “have mercy on those who waver” shifts toward “have mercy on those who argue,” a significant tonal/doctrinal distortion. (3) ביראה/בזהירות (fear of contamination while rescuing) risks default collapse into יִרְאַת שָׁמַיִם (reverential fear of Heaven) — a completely different register.	Maintain רחמים/חסד as permanently separate lexical tracks across all Jude materials. Maintain the dispute/waver fence absolutely (non-negotiable — see ranked risks, §6). Explicitly gloss ביראה as fear-of-contamination, not reverential fear, at first occurrence.
Kept by God and Presented Blameless (1:1, 6, 13, 20–21, 24)	שמר-family (שמורים/נשמרת/שמרו/לשמור); רוח הקודש; מתפללים; תמימים; ברינה/בגילה	(1) The ש־מ־ר root thread is the letter’s structural spine; over-diversifying it across occurrences for stylistic variation (a natural translator instinct) would obscure the negative-angels/positive-believers/climactic-God pattern that carries the doctrine. (2) תמימים carries strong sacrificial-cultic resonance (Levitical unblemished-offering requirement) — a genuine asset, but risks under-translation into a flat, secular “faultless” if handled carelessly by a translator unfamiliar with the resonance’s importance.	Mandate identical ש־מ־ר-root family forms at every occurrence (1:1, 6, 13, 21, 24) as a non-negotiable consistency rule, distinct from the normal “preferred but flexible” Medium-risk convention. Preserve תמימים explicitly as the sacrificial-offering term, with a teaching note connecting believers’ final presentation to the Levitical תָּמִים requirement.
Doxology and God’s Preserving Power (1:24–25)	אלוהים; ישוע; מושיענו (new, ישע root); כבוד; גדולה; עוז (new, κράτος); סמכות; מעולם ועד עולם	(1) עוז must be fenced against כּוֹחַ (already reserved for δύναμις θεοῦ in Romans, which does not occur in Jude) so the doxology’s four distinct Greek nouns (δόξα, μεγαλωσύνη, κράτος, ἐξουσία) remain four distinct Hebrew nouns, not collapsed by accidental reuse. (2) “The only God our Savior” (1:25) sits directly beside the Shema’s אֶחָד affirmation and must be framed as compatible with, not competing against, that unity, echoing the same handling required in Romans for the Deity of Christ doctrine.	Enforce the four-noun distinctness (כבוד / גדולה / עוז / סמכות) as a hard rule. Apply the Romans baseline’s existing Deity-of-Christ framing guidance to 1:25’s “only God” language without modification.

---

2. Missing Vocabulary: Terms Requiring Coinage or Compound Phrasing

Modern Hebrew has no single, settled lexical item for the following Jude-specific concepts. Each requires either a compound phrase or a deliberately narrowed choice among near-synonyms:

Concept	Gap	Resolution Adopted
ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι — athletic-combat “contend for”	No single Hebrew verb carries both the athletic-contest imagery and the doctrinal-defense sense simultaneously	Compound resolved to single strong verb להיאבק (wrestle/struggle), rejecting the weaker להתאמץ (merely “strive”), which loses the contest imagery entirely
ἅπαξ παραδοθείσῃ — “once for all delivered”	No single word conveys both “handed down” (transmission) and “completed, unrepeatable, closed” (finality) at once	Compound phrase שנמסרה כבר פעם אחת, deliberately drawing on the Avot 1:1 מ־ס־ר transmission root for positive resonance, paired with explicit “closed deposit” teaching scaffolding (see §1)
δεσπότης — a title of absolute ownership-authority distinct from κύριος	Hebrew’s default “master” vocabulary (אָדוֹן) is already fully committed to κύριος in the baseline	New term ריבון (ribon) introduced specifically to preserve Jude 1:4’s rhetorical double-title; deliberately NOT built from the אדון root
ψυχικός — “soulish,” merely natural/unregenerate	No Hebrew word carries an inherently negative “unspiritual” sense; נֶפֶש is positively loaded throughout the Tanakh	Adjective נפשיים adopted with mandatory context-anchoring (see §1); no better single-word alternative exists
δόξαι (plural, angelic “glorious ones,” 1:8) — distinct from δόξα (God’s own glory)	Hebrew כָּבוֹד is already fully committed as the doctrinal term for God’s own glory; reusing it for created angelic beings would conflate categories	New term נכבדים (dignitaries/glorious ones) coined specifically to keep the two senses apart
κράτος — dominion/might, distinct from δύναμις	Hebrew כּוֹחַ is already reserved for δύναμις θεοῦ in the baseline; γבורה carries unwanted Kabbalistic sefirot associations (per baseline’s own power-of-God ruling)	New term עוז (oz) selected as a third, previously unassigned power-word, preserving the doxology’s four-noun distinctness
διακρίνω, sense 1 (dispute/argue, 1:9) and sense 2 (waver/doubt, 1:22)	A single Greek root, two theologically unrelated Hebrew semantic fields (verbal contention vs. internal uncertainty); no single Hebrew word spans both without serious tonal risk	Deliberately split into two unrelated Hebrew renderings: התעמת בטענות (1:9) and המפקפקים (1:22) — see §3, §5, §6
ἀγάπαι (technical “love feasts,” 1:12)	Hebrew has no inherited single word for this specific early-church communal-meal institution	Compound noun-phrase סעודות אהבה coined, deliberately kept apart from שותפות (κοινωνία/fellowship, already assigned in the baseline)

---

3. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods Requiring Fencing

Jude compresses an unusually high density of near-synonyms into 25 verses. The following neighborhoods carry real collision risk if fencing is not maintained rigorously across every occurrence.

3.1 The אָדוֹן / רִיבּוֹן neighborhood (Lordship titles)

κύριος (אָדוֹן, baseline) and δεσπότης (ריבון, new) appear jointly in Jude 1:4 as a deliberate rhetorical doubling emphasizing Christ’s supreme authority against the false teachers’ denial. Fence: these two Hebrew words must never be used interchangeably or collapsed into one in any Jude material; אָדוֹן retains its full baseline weight (proximity to the spoken substitute for the Tetragrammaton) and ריבון must never absorb that association, remaining a distinct, non-divine-Name-adjacent term of absolute ownership.

3.2 The כָּבוֹד / נִכְבָּדִים neighborhood (Glory)

God’s own glory (כבוד, 1:24–25) and the created angelic “glorious ones” reviled by the false teachers (נכבדים, 1:8) must never share a Hebrew root-form in this letter, or a reader could conclude the false teachers blaspheme God’s own kavod rather than merely created angelic dignitaries — actually understating the doctrine (Jude’s point in 1:8 is bad enough without conflating it with 1:24-25’s far weightier subject). Fence: maintain the distinct נכבדים/כבוד pair absolutely.

3.3 The כּוֹחַ / עֹז / גְּבוּרָה neighborhood (Power/Might/Dominion)

Three Hebrew power-words are now in play across the combined Romans+Jude Language Package: כּוֹחַ (δύναμις, Romans-only, does not occur in Jude), עֹז (new, κράτος, Jude 1:25), and גְּבוּרָה (explicitly REJECTED in the baseline for its Kabbalistic sefirot association). Fence: never substitute עֹז for כּוֹחַ or vice versa across the combined corpus; never introduce גְּבוּרָה at all.

3.4 The חֶסֶד / רַחֲמִים neighborhood (Grace/Mercy)

Romans’ grace-vocabulary (חסד, χάρις) and Jude’s mercy-vocabulary (רחמים, ἔλεος) are theologically related but textually distinct threads; Jude 1:4 explicitly discusses grace perverted into license, while Jude 1:2/21–23 develops an independent mercy-thread culminating in the rescue imperative of 1:23. Fence: the two Hebrew words must remain on separate tracks throughout; collapsing them would blur the letter’s own vocabulary distinction and weaken the doctrine of Mercy and Rescue of the Wavering as its own theological unit.

3.5 The גְּזַר־דִּין / מִשְׁפָּט neighborhood (Verdict vs. Process)

κρίμα (a specific pronounced sentence, 1:4) and κρίσις (the general judgment process/event, 1:6, 9, 15) are two distinct Greek words Jude uses deliberately. Fence: גזר-דין and משפט must never be swapped; doing so would erase Jude’s two-tier judgment vocabulary and weaken the doctrine of Judgment on Ungodly False Teachers.

3.6 The דיקרינו split: התעמת בטענות / המפקפקים (Dispute vs. Waver)

See §2 and §6 — this is the single most consequential fencing decision in the entire letter, because the shared Greek root (διακρίνω) creates a genuine temptation toward a unified Hebrew rendering that would be doctrinally and pastorally damaging if adopted.

3.7 The טָמֵא / מְטַמְּאִים neighborhood (Ritual vs. Moral Impurity)

מטמאים (Jude 1:8, moral/sexual defilement) shares its root with the entire Levitical ritual-purity vocabulary (טָמֵא, kashrut and ritual-impurity law). Fence: every occurrence must be co-taught with explicit disambiguation that Jude’s usage is moral, not ceremonial/dietary, impurity.

3.8 The אֱמוּנָה neighborhood (Faith: subjective vs. objective)

A single Hebrew word (אמונה) must now carry both Romans’ dominant subjective-trust sense and Jude’s dominant objective fixed-deposit sense. Fence: not a lexical substitution (no better single Hebrew alternative exists), but a mandatory sense-flagging convention: every Jude occurrence of אמונה referring to “the faith” (1:3, 1:20) must carry a footnote or gloss establishing the objective sense, so learners moving between the Romans and Jude curricula do not default to the subjective sense by habit.

3.9 The כְּפִירָה neighborhood (Denial as apostasy-level charge)

כופרים (1:4) sits inside one of the most serious accusation-categories in Jewish religious discourse. Fence: this word must never be used loosely or extended by analogy to lesser doctrinal disagreements elsewhere in supplementary teaching materials; its use must remain confined to Jude 1:4’s specific referent (denial of Christ’s Master/Lord status).

---

4. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions

Item	Decision	Rationale
Proper names: חנוך (Enoch), מיכאל (Michael), סדום ועמורה (Sodom/Gomorrah), קין (Cain), בלעם (Balaam), קורח (Korah)	Transliterate (already-native Hebrew Bible forms; no transliteration actually needed — these are indigenous Hebrew names)	These are not foreign loanwords requiring transliteration decisions at all; the “decision” is simply to use the existing Masoretic spelling, never a re-Hellenized or re-Latinized form
שר המלאכים (title for Michael, “archangel”)	Paraphrase using existing Danielic title, not a loanword coinage (e.g., not אַרְכֵי-מַלְאָךְ)	Daniel 10:13,21; 12:1 already supplies שַׂר as Michael’s title; this is a genuine positive asset avoiding an unnecessary Greek loanword
ἀστέρες πλανῆται (“wandering stars”)	Paraphrase using an existing Hebrew idiom that happens to be exact — כוכבי לכת	Modern Hebrew’s own word for “planet” is literally “wandering star,” making this the rare case where the target language’s ordinary vocabulary already encodes the source image precisely; no coinage needed
δεσπότης (“Master/Sovereign”)	Coin/select a new term (ריבון), not transliterate	A Greek loanword (e.g., a transliterated “despotes”) would import a modern pejorative “despot” association absent from the biblical Greek sense; ריבון is a native Hebrew word for sovereign ownership with no such negative drift
ἀσέλγεια (“sensuality”)	Paraphrase with existing biblical term (זימה), not transliterate	A native Levitical-register term already exists with the correct sense; transliteration would be both unnecessary and would strip the term of its OT resonance
ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι (“contend”)	Paraphrase (להיאבק), not transliterate	No Greek athletic-contest loanword has entered standard Hebrew theological register; native verb preserves the imagery without foreignizing it
ψυχικός (“soulish”)	Paraphrase using existing root (נפשיים) rather than coining a wholly new term	A wholly invented neologism would carry no interpretive traction for readers; reusing the existing root with mandatory context-flagging is preferable to introducing an opaque new word
ἀγάπαι (“love feasts,” technical institution)	Paraphrase as a compound (סעודות אהבה), not transliterate	No precedent transliteration exists in Hebrew NT tradition (Delitzsch renders it descriptively); a compound noun phrase is idiomatic and clear
”Abba”-style untranslated retention (cf. Romans baseline)	Not applicable in Jude — no Aramaic terms of this kind occur in the letter	Noted for completeness; Jude introduces no analogous retained-transliteration case

General principle established: transliteration is reserved exclusively for proper names already possessing settled native Hebrew Bible forms. Every common-noun theological term in Jude is resolved through paraphrase, compounding, or selective reuse of existing (possibly repurposed) Hebrew vocabulary — never through Greek-loanword transliteration. This matches the baseline Romans package’s own consistent practice.

---

5. Dispute vs. Waver: A Dedicated Fencing Case Study

Because Jude 1:9 and 1:22 share the single Greek root διακρίνω in two theologically unrelated senses, this case receives dedicated treatment as the letter’s most structurally significant translation decision.

• 1:9 (Michael’s restrained argument with the devil): rendered התעמת בטענות (“contended/argued with claims/arguments”) — an external, verbal, forensic contention between two spiritual beings.
• 1:22 (mercy toward wavering believers): rendered המפקפקים (“the ones who are doubting/wavering”) — an internal, psychological, non-adversarial state of uncertainty.

Why a shared Hebrew rendering was rejected: Both Greek instances derive from διακρίνω (“to separate/distinguish,” extending to “dispute” or “waver” depending on context). A translator instinct toward etymological consistency might favor one Hebrew root spanning both. This must be resisted: if the same Hebrew verb-root were used in both verses, a reader encountering 1:22 could subconsciously import 1:9’s adversarial, argumentative connotation into the pastoral mercy-command, making the wavering believers sound combative or defiant rather than fragile and uncertain — precisely inverting the tenderness Jude 1:22–23 requires. This is flagged as the letter’s single highest-value fencing decision (see ranked risks below).

---

6. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities in Jude

Ranked by combined severity (doctrinal weight × likelihood of translator drift) for Phase 2 routing priority.

1. διακρίνω split — dispute (1:9) vs. waver (1:22). [Critical/High practical risk] A single mistranslation collapsing these two senses would distort the pastoral tone of the letter’s central mercy-command. Requires theologian review at both occurrences with cross-reference verification.

2. Enoch citation (1:14–15) — canon and inspiration status. [Critical] The single highest doctrinal-stakes ambiguity in the letter: failing to distinguish “Jude cites true content from 1 Enoch” from “Jude canonizes the Book of Enoch” risks either elevating a non-canonical text to Scripture-status in the reader’s mind or undermining confidence in Jude’s own inspired authority. Mandatory theologian review; mandatory accompanying explanatory note in every teaching context.

3. κύριος / δεσπότης double title (1:4) — אָדוֹן / רִיבּוֹן. [Critical] Any accidental collapse of these two titles into one Hebrew word understates Jude’s rhetorical emphasis on Christ’s supreme, doubly-affirmed authority at the exact point the false teachers deny it. Directly intersects the baseline’s own Critical-tier handling of אָדוֹן’s proximity to the divine Name.

4. The “kept” (שמר) thread’s cross-verse consistency (1:1, 6, 13, 21, 24). [High] Not a single-verse ambiguity but a whole-letter structural risk: stylistic variation by a translator seeking to avoid repetition would silently destroy the negative-angels/positive-believers/climactic-God pattern that is the letter’s theological spine. Requires a dedicated consistency check across all five occurrences as a single review unit, not five independent decisions.

5. σπιλάδες lexical ambiguity (1:12) — “hidden reefs” vs. “stains/blemishes.” [Medium-High] A genuine, unresolved lexical ambiguity in the Greek itself (not merely a translation-choice problem); שרטונים (reefs) is preferred, but the alternative כתמים (stains) carries real scholarly support and should remain flagged for reviewer awareness rather than treated as settled.

6. δόξα / δόξαι (1:8 vs. 1:24–25) — glory vs. glorious ones. [High] Same Greek lexeme, two entirely different referents (created angelic beings vs. God’s own being); a Hebrew rendering that fails to fence כבוד from נכבדים risks a reader concluding the false teachers blaspheme God’s own glory directly, rather than reviling angelic dignitaries — overstating 1:8 and understating 1:24-25’s far greater weight.

7. ψυχικοί (1:19) — “soulish,” positive-nephesh collision. [High] The single greatest risk of a Hebrew word’s inherent connotation working directly against the intended sense: נֶפֶש’s overwhelmingly positive Genesis 2:7 resonance runs opposite to the Greek’s negative philosophical contrast. Requires mandatory context-anchoring to the following clause (“not having the Spirit”) at every occurrence.

8. כופרים (1:4) — denial as apostasy-level accusation. [High] Doctrinally exact but carries an unusually heavy communal-accusation weight in Hebrew religious discourse; risk is less mistranslation than miscalibrated reader reaction if introduced without scaffolding.

9. κρίμα / κρίσις (1:4 vs. 1:6, 9, 15) — verdict vs. process. [High] Two Greek words Jude itself distinguishes; a Hebrew translator’s tendency to reach for the single most familiar judgment-word (משפט) for both would erase a deliberate authorial distinction.

10. “The faith” objective sense (1:3, 1:20) vs. Romans’ subjective-trust default for אמונה. [High] A cross-curriculum consistency risk: because אמונה is heavily reinforced as subjective trust throughout the Romans materials a learner may have already studied, Jude’s objective, fixed-deposit sense is the more easily mis-defaulted reading precisely because the same word “worked” differently in the prior curriculum.

11. מטמאים (1:8) — moral vs. ritual defilement root collision. [Medium-High] Real but more containable risk than items above, since the moral/ritual distinction is a single, teachable point rather than a structurally pervasive issue.

12. עֹז / כּוֹחַ (1:25) — dominion vs. power-of-God term reuse across the combined Language Package corpus. [Medium] Lower risk than the above because כּוֹחַ does not itself occur anywhere in Jude, reducing same-document collision likelihood, but flagged for cross-document consistency review since both terms now live in the same combined translation memory.

---

7. Summary Recommendations for Phase 1 Step 9 (Translation Memory Update)

1. Add all new terms cataloged in the Core Glossary (08) to translation_memory.json, incrementing the version number, with risk tiers matching bible_term_registry.json.
2. Encode the seven fencing pairs in §3 as explicit “never substitute” pairs in translation memory notes fields, following the existing baseline convention (e.g., the Romans package’s גבורה/כוח and קידוש/התקדשות precedents).
3. Encode the שמר-thread consistency rule (§6, item 4) as a document-level (not segment-level) validation rule for Phase 2, since it cannot be correctly checked one segment at a time.
4. Flag the Enoch citation (§6, item 2) and the διακρίνω split (§6, item 1) for mandatory theologian review at every occurrence, per the escalation conventions established in 12_ai_translation_requirements.md.
5. No chapter or verse of Jude requires further gap analysis beyond what is recorded here and in the Core Glossary; full-book coverage for Step 8 is complete.