Executive Summary: Amos (English → Hindi Language Package)

Curriculum: Amos, chapters 1–9 (full-book coverage; core passage Amos 5:18–24) Destination language: Hindi (Devanagari script) Doctrines in focus: Social Justice and Care for the Poor · Judgment on Empty Religious Ritual · God’s Sovereignty over All Nations · The Day of the Lord as Judgment · The Restoration of David’s Fallen Tent (Messianic Hope)

---

Why It Matters

Amos is the first curriculum in this Hindi Language Package built from a Hebrew prophetic original, not Koine Greek, and it introduces the pipeline’s first wholly new Critical-risk theological term (न्याय, justice/mishpat) since the Romans baseline was fixed. The book’s sustained social-justice polemic, its Day-of-the-LORD judgment oracle, and its climactic Davidic-restoration prophecy (quoted at Acts 15:16–17) each sit directly on top of live Hindi religious vocabulary fields — dharma-discourse, panchang-calculated auspicious days, avatar-cycle restoration, and karma-linked poverty — making Amos, term-for-term, one of the highest theological-collision-risk books this pipeline has yet processed.

Key Findings

• 65 new Amos-specific terms were identified across all nine chapters (none overlap with the Romans/Galatians baseline): 8 Critical, 26 High, 22 Medium, 9 Low risk.
• 16 doctrines span the full book: the 5 curriculum-designated doctrines are all Critical; 9 supporting doctrines are High; 2 are Medium; 0 are Low. 14 of 16 doctrines require human theologian review; the remaining 2 require native speaker review only.
• The single highest-stakes lexical decision in the entire curriculum is the fixed pairing of न्याय (justice) with the baseline’s existing धार्मिकता (righteousness) at Amos 5:24, under an absolute, non-negotiable prohibition on धर्म.
• 26 baseline Romans/Galatians terms (यहोवा-adjacent परमेश्वर, प्रभु, दाऊद, वाचा, बचे हुए लोग, मन फिराव, भविष्यद्वक्ता, मूर्तिपूजा, धार्मिकता, पाप, पवित्र, भेद, सृजनहार, संप्रभुता, चुनाव, मध्यस्थता, घमण्ड, बहाली, बुलाए हुए/बुलाहट, प्रकाशन, व्यवस्था, शांति, and others) are reused exactly, with contextual notes added where Amos’s Hebrew usage carries a distinct nuance.
• Amos’s climactic verse (9:11, “David’s fallen tent”) creates a direct cross-curriculum collision risk with the baseline’s Critical resurrection_of_christ term; this pipeline fixes दाऊद का गिरा हुआ तम्बू with restoration vocabulary (फिर से खड़ा करना/बनाना) and an absolute prohibition on पुनरुत्थान.

Risks

• न्याय ↔ धर्म drift (Critical): “Justice and righteousness” is the single most likely phrase in the curriculum to pull an unguided Hindi rendering toward धर्म, given surface resemblance to dharma-discourse. Every occurrence (5:7,15,24; 6:12) requires theologian review.
• यहोवा का दिन ↔ शुभ/अशुभ दिन drift (Critical): panchang-style astrological day-reckoning is a live, ready-to-hand Hindi framework that could quietly replace the personal, moral, one-time Day of the LORD. 9 occurrences flagged.
• होमबलि/अन्नबलि/मेलबलि ↔ बलि/यज्ञ drift (Critical/High): mislabeling God’s own instituted Levitical rites with generic Hindu appeasement-offering vocabulary would invert the entire Judgment-on-Empty-Ritual doctrine, either by assimilating them to propitiatory ritual logic or by implying blanket anti-ritual polemic.
• दाऊद का गिरा हुआ तम्बू ↔ पुनरुत्थान/अवतार drift (Critical): dynastic restoration confused with either Christ’s unique bodily resurrection or a Hindu avatar-cycle would corrupt two Critical-tier doctrines simultaneously.
• एदोम/मनुष्य (MT/LXX) crux at 9:12 (Critical): omitting the mandatory theologian footnote would strand any downstream curriculum module connecting Amos 9 to Acts 15’s Gentile-inclusion argument.
• Poverty vocabulary ↔ karmic-desert drift (High): दीन/कंगाल/दरिद्र must never imply the poor’s condition reflects their own moral or karmic failing — Amos blames the oppressor, not the oppressed.
• “Are you not like the Cushites?” (9:7) ↔ caste-superiority drift (Critical): election language is vulnerable to a hereditary/caste-rank misreading that inverts Amos’s own accountability-not-privilege argument.

Opportunities

• Amos’s concrete, agrarian, and commercial imagery (city gates, false balances, plumb lines, shepherding) is generally more accessible at the Class 8–10 Hindi reading-level target than Romans’ forensic vocabulary, offering strong pedagogical entry points once terminology is fixed.
• The book’s social-justice doctrine has unusually strong cross-traditional intelligibility (Catholic social teaching, Jewish tzedek u-mishpat, Islamic zakat/ʿadl) that can be leveraged pastorally, provided न्याय’s covenant-relational ground (not karma-merit) is kept explicit.
• The Sovereignty-over-Nations doctrine (9:7; 1:3–2:3) offers a direct, textually-grounded corrective to caste-linked spiritual hierarchy — a live pastoral opportunity in the Hindi-speaking context, provided the translation preserves its unqualified force.
• Fixing न्याय now, with an ironclad translator note anchoring it to धार्मिकता, establishes reusable social-justice vocabulary for any future Hindi curriculum drawn from the other Minor Prophets or from Isaiah/Micah.

Recommended Actions

1. Merge assets/translation_memory.json (this revision) into the production glossary before any Phase 2 Amos segment is translated; confirm all 65 new terms and all inherited-term contextual notes are loaded.
2. Route all 14 theologian-review doctrines and every Critical/High term occurrence per assets/doctrine_risk_registry.json and the escalation rules in analysis/12_ai_translation_requirements.md — no Critical-tier segment may be marked approved without theologian sign-off.
3. Attach the seven mandatory footnotes (ritual-rejection, Day-of-the-LORD, three-transgressions idiom, qayits/qets pun, MT/LXX Edom-mankind crux, David’s-tent restoration-vs-resurrection, Cushites election-vs-caste) at every qualifying occurrence before segment approval.
4. Cross-check Amos 9:11–15 against any Acts 15:16–17 rendering in parallel NT curricula for verbatim consistency of restoration and remnant vocabulary.
5. Brief native-speaker reviewers explicitly on the two Medium-risk doctrines (God’s self-oath, 6:8; intercessory relenting, 7:1–6) so they are not silently escalated or silently waved through.