Linguistic Gap Analysis

Linguistic Gap Analysis — Nahum

0. Scope and Method

This analysis surveys the Hindi (Devanagari, formal BSI NV register) resources available for translating and teaching Nahum’s four assigned doctrines — The Justice and Wrath of God against Oppressors, God’s Sovereignty over Nineveh and Assyria, Comfort for the Oppressed, and God as Slow to Anger yet Just — against the full book (Nahum 1:1–3:19), with Nahum 1:1–8 as the theological anchor.

Method: for each doctrine, (a) inventory Hindi terms already fixed by the baseline Romans/Galatians Language Package that are reusable without modification; (b) inventory genuinely new Hebrew-rooted vocabulary this book introduces; (c) identify where Hindi’s existing religious-semantic field is crowded (multiple competing associations attach to the natural gloss) versus where it is missing (no natural Hindi term exists and a compound/periphrastic construction is required); (d) recommend a fencing or construction strategy; (e) flag cross-curriculum reconciliation issues for theologian adjudication.

Full-book coverage note: Nahum’s three chapters are compact and lexically repetitive (the wrath-cluster and the Nineveh-judgment imagery recur across all three chapters). No chapter is without load-bearing content; chapter-by-chapter notes are given in §5.

1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

1.1 The Justice and Wrath of God against Oppressors

Available Hindi terms	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
परमेश्वर का क्रोध ([TM-REUSE] baseline `wrath_of_god`)	Baseline entry was built for Romans’ single-term usage; Nahum stacks four near-synonyms (חֵמָה, אַף, חָרוֹן אַף, זַעַם) in three verses (1:2,3,6), a rhetorical intensification the single base term cannot itself carry.	Keep परमेश्वर का क्रोध as the fixed base term for every occurrence (never introduce competing base nouns); carry Nahum’s synonym-stacking through intensifying modifiers (उग्र क्रोध, भड़कता क्रोध, प्रचण्ड क्रोध) attached to the fixed noun, so Hindi readers feel the accumulating rhetorical weight without multiplying what looks like separate divine-anger “powers.”
पलटा लेनेवाला परमेश्वर ([NEW] `vengeance_of_god`)	Attested Hindi OV rendering is बदला, which the baseline explicitly forbids for divine wrath because it denotes personal score-settling revenge between equals. Nahum’s נָקַם, however, is genuinely vengeance-vocabulary (repeated three times in 1:2), stronger than generic “wrath.”	Retain पलटा लेनेवाला परमेश्वर / परमेश्वर पलटा लेता है, explicitly as judicial retribution by the rightful cosmic judge on behalf of the oppressed, never personal revenge. Mandatory translator note on first occurrence (1:2) stating this explicitly. Flag for theologian reconciliation against any future OT curriculum that might independently reach for बदला.
लहू से भरा नगर (city of blood, `city_of_blood`, 3:1); दुष्ट युक्ति / षड़यंत्र (`evil_plot`, 1:9,11); नीच/दुष्ट सलाहकार (`wicked_counselor`, 1:11)	These name Nineveh’s crimes (the grounds for wrath) rather than the wrath itself, and Hindi has no single term bundling “state-sponsored, premeditated violence” — a legal register largely absent from everyday devotional Hindi vocabulary.	Retain as concrete, separate terms rather than trying to compress into one doctrine-word; the doctrine is best taught by accumulation of concrete named crimes (bloodshed, plotting, wicked counsel, sorcery, harlotry-as-political-deceit) rather than a single abstract noun, mirroring the Hebrew’s own indictment style.
पूरी तरह अन्त कर देना (`complete_end`, 1:8,9)	See §2.2 below — direct collision with cyclical-dissolution (pralaya) cosmology.	Mandatory translator note fixing linear, historical, one-time finality on every occurrence.

1.2 God’s Sovereignty over Nineveh and Assyria

Available Hindi terms	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
परमेश्वर की सामर्थ्य ([TM-REUSE] baseline `power_of_god`, 1:3)	None specific to Nahum; the baseline’s existing शक्ति prohibition (Hindu Shakti/goddess-power) is more exposed here than in Romans because Nahum’s imagery (storm, flood, quaking mountains, melting hills) is exactly the register in which Shakti-vocabulary would otherwise be reached for by a Hindi writer describing cosmic natural power.	Reinforce the existing baseline prohibition with a Nahum-specific translator note at 1:3-6: cosmic-scale power imagery must stay grammatically and lexically tied to परमेश्वर (a personal agent), never drift into independent nature-force or goddess-power vocabulary.
आँधी और तूफान (storm/whirlwind theophany, `storm_theophany`, 1:3); डाँटना/धमकाना (sovereign rebuke of sea/rivers, `sovereign_rebuke`, 1:4); काँपना/पिघल जाना (mountains quake/hills melt, `cosmic_upheaval_theophany`, 1:5)	Standard OT theophany vocabulary has no true Hindi equivalent tradition outside the Christian Bible itself; the nearest cultural resonance is Vedic/Puranic storm-deities (Indra, Varuna) and mountain-deity narratives, which could recast God as one nature-deity among many rather than sovereign Creator commanding nature.	Keep imagery concrete and effortless-command framed (God speaks/rebukes and creation obeys instantly) rather than a struggle between rival cosmic powers; brief contextual note recommended at first occurrence distinguishing sovereign command from a storm-deity’s own domain-power.
बड़ी बाढ़ / जलधारा (overwhelming flood, `overwhelming_flood`, 1:8); ढाल/लाल रथ (siege equipment, `shield_chariot`, 2:3); सिंह/जवान सिंह/सिंहनी (lion imagery, `lion_imagery`, 2:11-12); टिड्डी/टिड्डी के बच्चे (locust imagery, `locust_imagery`, 3:15,17)	These are concrete, low-collision historical/military/agricultural images; the only gap is that Hindi readers lack the historical referents (Tigris flood breaching Nineveh 612 BC; Assyrian royal lion-iconography; siege warfare conventions) needed to feel the irony (predator becomes prey; besieger becomes besieged).	No new vocabulary needed; supply brief historical footnotes rather than new terms. This is a knowledge gap, not a lexical gap.
नो-आमोन (थीबीज़) (`no_amon`, 3:8)	Implicit theological point (YHWH’s sovereignty exceeds the god Amun’s failed patronage of Thebes) is invisible without a gloss; Hindi readers will not recognize the ancient Egyptian religious contest embedded in the reference.	Supply a historical-theological gloss on first occurrence: this is not merely a geography lesson but an implicit contest between YHWH and a named rival deity, in which YHWH’s sovereignty is vindicated by history. This directly serves the “no earthly power is exempt” argument and should not be flattened into a bare place-name footnote.
नीनवे / अश्शूर (proper nouns)	None; established, low risk.	Retain as-is throughout.

1.3 Comfort for the Oppressed

Available Hindi terms	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
नहूम (`comfort_name_nahum`, 1:1)	Hebrew wordplay (נחם, “comfort/consolation”) is entirely invisible in a bare transliteration; Hindi has no morphological trace connecting the name to its meaning.	Mandatory explanatory gloss (“नहूम, जिसका अर्थ है ‘शान्ति’ या ‘सांत्वना’”) wherever the Comfort doctrine is taught — every time, not only on first occurrence, since this is the doctrinal hinge of the entire book and the gloss cannot be structurally embedded in Hindi the way it is audible in Hebrew.
गढ़ / शरणस्थान (stronghold/refuge, `stronghold_refuge`, 1:7); जो उसकी शरण लेते हैं (taking refuge, `taking_refuge`, 1:7); संकट का दिन (day of trouble, `day_of_trouble`, 1:7); जानता है [सम्बन्ध की दृष्टि से] (relational knowing, `relational_knowing`, 1:7)	Individually low-risk standard vocabulary, but Hindi गढ़/शरण could be read as referring to a physical place of pilgrimage (analogous to a tirtha or sacred site) rather than God’s own person; जानना (to know) defaults to cognitive/factual knowledge in ordinary Hindi, obscuring the covenantal-relational sense.	Keep गढ़/शरण grammatically anchored to परमेश्वर himself as the refuge (not a place one travels to); attach a short relational-covenant gloss to जानता है on first occurrence distinguishing it from mere factual awareness. These four terms function as a single comfort-cluster and should be taught together, not atomized.
शांति ([TM-REUSE] baseline `peace`, 1:15)	Baseline caution (psychological calm vs. relational/covenantal peace) applies unchanged; here it is specifically peace secured through the removal of a named historical oppressor, a nuance the bare noun does not carry alone.	Retain शांति exactly; supply context (not a new term) tying it to the military/political deliverance just announced, so it is not misheard as generalized inner tranquility.
शुभ समाचार (लानेवाला) (`good_news_temporal`, 1:15)	See §2.1 below — direct boundary risk against सुसमाचार.	Deliberate non-reuse of सुसमाचार; mandatory theologian confirmation note on every occurrence (see ranked risks).
पर्व / मन्नत (feast/vow, `feast_vow`, 1:15)	Low risk; concrete liturgical vocabulary already familiar from Hindu festival/vow culture (उत्सव, मन्नत माँगना), which is an asset here (natural intelligibility) rather than a collision, provided the addressee of the vow is kept unambiguously यहोवा.	Retain; add a brief note only if needed to keep the vow’s addressee unambiguous.

1.4 God as Slow to Anger yet Just

Available Hindi terms	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
क्रोध करने में धीर (`slow_to_anger`, 1:3a)	In isolation, resonates with a common bhakti-devotional assumption that divine mercy is effectively limitless and eventually dissolves all accountability (a “God is only love/patience” reading), which is exactly half of Nahum’s balanced claim.	Never translate or teach 1:3a as a standalone clause; it must always be immediately paired, in the same sentence or teaching unit, with 1:3b (see next row). This is a structural pairing requirement, not merely a lexical one.
दोषी को कदापि निर्दोष नहीं ठहराएगा (`will_not_leave_unpunished`, 1:3b)	Hebrew’s infinitive-absolute-plus-finite-verb doubling (נַקֵּה לֹא יְנַקֶּה) has no native Hindi doubling construction; the emphatic force must be carried by an adverb (कदापि) rather than verb-reduplication.	Reuse कदापि (from baseline `by_no_means`) as the emphasis-carrier; this is already the correct strategy and should not be replaced by a flatter, unemphatic verb phrase (े.g. “वह दण्ड देता है”), which would lose the doctrinal hinge-force entirely.
परमेश्वर की सामर्थ्य (great in power, grounding the patience, 1:3)	See §1.2; risk here is specifically that “slow to anger” could be misread as weakness rather than forbearing strength if the power-clause is detached from the patience-clause.	Teach the two clauses of 1:3 as a single unit: patience because of strength, not patience instead of strength.
यहोवा भला है (goodness of God, `goodness_of_god`, 1:7)	Following six verses of dense wrath-vocabulary, भला could read as an abrupt tonal shift or even a separate divine “mood” rather than the same righteous character expressed differently.	Teach explicitly as one unified character (the same God who is just in wrath is also good to those who trust him), not two alternating divine dispositions.

2. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods

2.1 Crowded neighborhood: “good news” (בְּשׂוֹרָה / מְבַשֵּׂר, 1:15) vs. सुसमाचार

This is the single clearest crowded-neighborhood fencing case in Nahum. The Hebrew/LXX background of the NT εὐαγγέλιον sits directly in this verse, and a translator without explicit instruction would naturally reach for सुसमाचार, the exact baseline term reserved for the Christian gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection.

Problem: Using सुसमाचार here would teach, in effect, that Nahum 1:15 already is the Christian gospel, collapsing the distinction between an OT announcement of a specific, this-worldly military/political deliverance (Nineveh’s fall, Judah’s relief from a named historical oppressor) and the NT’s once-for-all salvation announcement.
Fence: शुभ समाचार (लानेवाला) is fixed as the term for this verse, with सुसमाचार explicitly forbidden here. A mandatory instructional note must accompany every occurrence: “This is the historical-linguistic background of the NT term, not an instance of the NT gospel itself.”
Status: High risk, already flagged in the registry; theologian confirmation required before Phase 2 use.

2.2 Crowded neighborhood: “complete end” (כָּלָה, 1:8,9) vs. cyclical cosmology

Problem: Hindi religious vocabulary for “ending” is saturated with cyclical connotations — most prominently pralaya (cosmic dissolution followed by recreation) and the broader yuga-cycle framework. A bare rendering like अन्त or विनाश risks being absorbed into this cyclical frame, especially since Nahum pairs it with cosmic-scale imagery (storm, flood, mountains) that itself borders on theophany/cosmology vocabulary.
Fence: पूरी तरह अन्त कर देना (a periphrastic, emphatically linear-completive construction) rather than a single noun; mandatory translator note distinguishing one-time historical termination from cyclical destruction-and-renewal on every occurrence (1:8, 1:9).
Status: High risk; this is a book-wide framing issue since “complete end” is the book’s climactic promise about Nineveh, occurring at the close of the core passage.

2.3 Crowded neighborhood: “vision” (חָזוֹן, 1:1) vs. दर्शन

Problem: दर्शन is the fixed Hindi Bible convention for prophetic-superscription “vision” genre markers (Isaiah, Amos, Obadiah, etc.), but the baseline Galatians Language Package explicitly rejects दर्शन for ἀποκάλυψις precisely because of its devotional-Hindu connotation: a worshipper’s auspicious sight of a deity’s visible form, gaze moving from devotee to deity. Nahum 1:1 requires the reverse direction — God discloses a message to the prophet.
Fence: Retain दर्शन only as the fixed genre-convention word in the superscription formula, never as a general term for revelation elsewhere in exposition (where प्रकाशन, the baseline Galatians term, should be preferred). Mandatory translator note on first occurrence stating the reversed gaze-direction explicitly. This creates an intentional, documented exception-with-guardrail to the Galatians precedent, not a silent contradiction of it.
Status: High risk; requires theologian adjudication to formally record this exception in the merged registry (flagged already in the core glossary).

2.4 Crowded neighborhood: “jealous” (קַנּוֹא, 1:2) vs. ईर्ष्या

Problem: The only natural Hindi glosses for “jealous” (ईर्ष्यालु, ईर्ष्या) denote sinful, petty human possessiveness or rivalry-envy. Applied to God without qualification, this would import a morally negative human vice into the foundational divine-character verse of the whole book.
Fence: जलनशील परमेश्वर (matching the established Hindi Exodus 20:5 rendering), always with a mandatory translator note distinguishing righteous, protective covenant zeal from ईर्ष्या. This is a foundational-verse risk (1:2 is the doctrinal seed of the whole book) and must never appear unglossed.
Status: Critical, per the registry.

2.5 Crowded neighborhood: “vengeance” (נָקָם, 1:2) vs. बदला

Problem: बदला is the historically attested Hindi OV choice and arguably the more lexically accurate match for נָקָם’s vengeance-register (stronger than generic wrath), but the baseline forbids it for divine anger because it connotes personal retaliatory score-settling.
Fence: पलटा लेनेवाला परमेश्वर, with the same mandatory judicial-not-personal note as in §1.1. This is flagged as an open cross-curriculum reconciliation question rather than a fully closed decision — future OT curricula using נָקָם elsewhere must adopt the same fence or document a deliberate departure.
Status: Critical; theologian reconciliation required.

2.6 Missing vocabulary: judicial-forensic register for corporate/national guilt

Problem: Terms like लहू से भरा नगर (city of blood), दुष्ट युक्ति (evil plot), and वेश्यावृत्ति (harlotries, corporate metaphor) each individually exist in Hindi, but Hindi has no single native legal-rhetorical genre-term equivalent to the Hebrew covenant-lawsuit (rîb) form that structures Nahum 3 as a whole — an indictment of a nation as a legal defendant.
Fence/strategy: No single missing-term fix is possible or necessary; instead, teaching material should make the covenant-lawsuit genre explicit in exposition (this is a formal legal indictment against a nation, not a lament or a curse), so that individual vocabulary items (blood-city, plots, harlotry-as-political-metaphor) are read within that genre frame rather than as isolated accusations.
Status: Medium/High cluster; primarily an expository framing gap rather than a lexical gap.

2.7 Missing vocabulary: honor/shame register for personified-city harlotry (זְנוּנִים, 3:4)

Problem: Hindi वेश्यावृत्ति is lexically available but carries strong, immediate honor/shame charge when read (as an Indian reader naturally would) as a claim about literal women, rather than the OT’s standard corporate/political personification convention (city/nation as unfaithful woman, paralleling Hosea/Ezekiel).
Fence: Mandatory translator note fixing the corporate/political-metaphor sense on every occurrence; route for combined native-speaker + theologian review per the baseline’s honor/shame convention (already established for Galatians’ “good showing in flesh” and comparable segments).
Status: High risk; see ranked list below.

3. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions

Term	Decision	Rationale
יְהוָה (YHWH)	Transliterate: यहोवा	Must be kept lexically distinct from परमेश्वर (Elohim/El) to preserve Nahum’s insistence that judgment flows from the specific covenant God, not an impersonal deity-category. Established BSI OV/NV convention.
נַחוּם (Nahum)	Transliterate + mandatory gloss: नहूम, glossed “meaning consolation”	Transliteration alone loses all doctrinal content; the meaning must be supplied every time the Comfort doctrine is taught, since Hindi provides no morphological trace back to the Hebrew root.
הָאֶלְקֹשִׁי (Elkoshite)	Transliterate: एलकोशी	Biographical proper noun, no doctrinal content to paraphrase; low risk.
נִינְוֵה, אַשּׁוּר (Nineveh, Assyria)	Transliterate: नीनवे, अश्शूर	Established Hindi Bible forms; no viable or desirable paraphrase.
נֹא אָמוֹן (No-Amon/Thebes)	Transliterate + mandatory historical-theological gloss: नो-आमोन (थीबीज़)	Bare transliteration is opaque to Hindi readers with no access to ancient Near Eastern geography; paraphrasing away the proper noun (e.g. simply “another great city”) would erase the implicit YHWH-vs-Amun theological contest the verse is making.
בָּשָׁן / כַּרְמֶל / לְבָנוֹן (Bashan/Carmel/Lebanon)	Transliterate: बाशान / करमेल / लबानोन	Established forms; the doctrinal point (no fertile or exalted place escapes God’s presence) is carried by the surrounding verbs, not by the place-names themselves.
מַשָּׂא (massa, “oracle/burden”)	Paraphrase/compound, not transliterate: भारवाणी	No Hindi transliteration would communicate anything; a compound noun conveying “weighty utterance” is required to distinguish it from generic भविष्यवाणी.
חָזוֹן (chazon, “vision”)	Reuse existing Hindi Bible convention (paraphrase-as-loan), not fresh transliteration: दर्शन	Already the fixed genre word across the Hindi prophetic-book corpus; introducing a novel term here (rather than reusing दर्शन with a guardrail note) would break consistency with every other prophetic-book superscription a Hindi reader will encounter.
קַנּוֹא (qanno, “jealous”)	Paraphrase, not transliterate: जलनशील परमेश्वर	Hebrew root has a direct, well-established qualitative Hindi gloss (जलन-, “burning/zealous”); transliteration would be meaningless to readers.
נֹקֵם/נָקָם (noqem/naqam, “vengeance”)	Paraphrase: पलटा लेनेवाला परमेश्वर	See §2.5; transliteration impossible for an abstract-relational Hebrew root.
כָּלָה (kalah, “complete end”)	Paraphrase (periphrastic verb phrase, deliberately not a single noun): पूरी तरह अन्त कर देना	A single noun (अन्त, विनाश, नाश) would be too easily absorbed into cyclical-cosmology associations (§2.2); the fuller verb phrase keeps the historical-agentive, one-time sense explicit.
מְבַשֵּׂר / בְּשׂוֹרָה (mevasser/besorah)	Paraphrase, deliberately NOT the established loan/calque सुसमाचार: शुभ समाचार (लानेवाला)	See §2.1; this is the clearest case in the whole curriculum where the “obvious,” most natural-sounding Hindi rendering must be deliberately avoided to protect a term boundary fixed elsewhere in the Language Package.

General principle emerging from this table: transliteration is reserved for proper nouns and the covenant name; every doctrinally load-bearing common noun or verbal construction in Nahum requires paraphrase, compounding, or reuse-with-guardrail — there is no case in this book where a bare single-word transliteration adequately carries a theological term.

4. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities

Ranked by combined doctrinal centrality (how load-bearing the term is to the book’s argument) and collision severity (how readily a natural Hindi rendering would import a false meaning).

“Christ lives in me”-class risk analog: “complete end” (כָּלָה, 1:8-9) vs. cyclical dissolution (pralaya/yuga cosmology). This is Nahum’s single highest cultural-collision point: the book’s climactic promise about Nineveh’s fate sits directly on top of India’s dominant popular cosmological framework for “ending.” Mandatory theologian review, mandatory translator note every occurrence.
“Vision” (חָזוֹן, 1:1) vs. दर्शन — direct, documented tension with the existing Galatians revelation prohibition. Because this term appears in the book’s opening verse, any inconsistency here undermines confidence in the whole Language Package’s internal coherence. Requires formal theologian adjudication, not just a note, before Phase 2 begins.
“Jealous God” (קַנּוֹא, 1:2) vs. ईर्ष्या (sinful human envy). Foundational verse for the entire book’s God-doctrine; an unglossed reading imports a moral flaw into God’s own character at the earliest possible point in the text.
“Vengeance” (נָקָם, 1:2) vs. बदला (personal revenge) — open cross-curriculum reconciliation question. Triple-repeated in the book’s second verse; the chosen fence (पलटा लेनेवाला परमेश्वर) is defensible but not yet ratified against the baseline’s existing wrath_of_god precedent by a theologian, creating latent inconsistency risk if a different OT curriculum handles the same Hebrew root differently.
“Good news/good tidings” (בְּשׂוֹרָה, 1:15) vs. सुसमाचार boundary. Lower doctrinal centrality to Nahum itself than items 1-4, but very high risk of cross-book doctrinal confusion (teaching that an OT military deliverance IS the NT gospel) if the deliberate non-reuse is not enforced consistently in Phase 2.
“Slow to anger” (1:3a) taught or quoted apart from “will not leave unpunished” (1:3b). Not a lexical-collision risk but a structural-excerption risk: because 1:3a is independently quotable and devotionally attractive (it resonates immediately with bhakti mercy-theology), any Phase 2 process that segments text into short quotable units must be explicitly guarded against separating the verse’s two halves.
“Harlotries” of Nineveh (זְנוּנִים, 3:4) read as literal content about women rather than corporate/political metaphor. High honor/shame misreading risk in the Indian social context; requires the same routing convention already used for comparable Galatians material.
“City of blood” (עִיר דָּמִים, 3:1) softened to a generic “violent city.” Risk is one of flattening rather than collision: losing the specific judicial-indictment/bloodguilt register would weaken the doctrine that Nineveh’s judgment answers concrete, nameable crimes rather than arbitrary hostility.
Storm/flood/mountain theophany imagery (1:3-5) drifting toward independent nature-deity resonance (Indra-type storm god, Shakti-type cosmic power). Diffuse rather than located in a single word, but present across the entire core passage’s second half; needs a single consolidated contextual note rather than per-term fixes.
“Knowing” (יֹדֵעַ, 1:7) read as bare cognitive awareness rather than covenantal-relational protection. Lowest-ranked of the ten because the risk is a loss of nuance rather than an active false doctrine, but still worth a standing translator note given how central 1:7 is to the Comfort doctrine.

5. Full-Book Coverage Note (Chapter-by-Chapter)

Nahum 1 (1:1–15): Core passage (1:1-8) plus its immediate continuation (1:9-15). Contains the overwhelming majority of this curriculum’s new and highest-risk vocabulary: the superscription genre terms (massa, chazon), the covenant name, the jealous-God and vengeance cluster, the wrath-synonym stack, the slow-to-anger/will-not-leave-unpunished hinge, the theophany imagery, the comfort/refuge cluster, and the good-news/peace pivot at 1:15. Fully analyzed above; no gaps.
Nahum 2 (2:1–13): Siege-narrative and predator-imagery chapter (shield/chariot, lion imagery, prey/plunder). Reviewed: no new Critical/High-risk doctrinal terms beyond those already registered; contributes concrete historical-military vocabulary supporting the Sovereignty doctrine (§1.2) and the Justice/Wrath doctrine’s “oppressor reversed” theme. Terms already captured in the core glossary and registry (shield_chariot, lion_imagery, prey_plunder).
Nahum 3 (3:1–19): Covenant-lawsuit indictment chapter (city of blood, harlotries, sorcery, nakedness/shame, locust imagery, No-Amon, shepherds/nobles). Reviewed: this chapter carries the highest concentration of honor/shame-sensitive and judicial-rhetorical vocabulary in the book (§2.6-2.7); all load-bearing terms already captured in the core glossary and registry (city_of_blood, harlotries_nineveh, sorcery, nakedness_shame, locust_imagery, no_amon, shepherds_nobles). No additional gaps identified beyond those already flagged above.

All three chapters are therefore accounted for: Chapter 1 is the doctrinal core and the source of nearly every ranked risk above; Chapters 2 and 3 are reviewed and confirmed to introduce only Medium/Low-risk supporting imagery already captured in the existing glossary/registry artifacts, with the two High-risk exceptions (city of blood; harlotries) folded into the ranked list in §4.

6. Summary Recommendations for Phase 2 Handoff

Merge all [NEW] entries from 08_core_glossary.md and the drafted bible_term_registry.json additions into the production registry before any segment translation begins, preserving the Critical/High/Medium/Low tiers assigned above.
Resolve the two open theologian-adjudication items (חָזוֹן/दर्शन vs. the Galatians precedent; נָקָם/पलटा लेनेवाला परमेश्वर vs. בदला) before Phase 2 Step 16 parallel processing begins, since both affect foundational verses (1:1, 1:2) that will recur across many downstream lesson segments.
Enforce the सुसमाचार/शुभ समाचार boundary (§2.1) as a validation rule equivalent in strictness to the baseline’s existing forbidden-substitution list.
Require the paired-clause rule for 1:3 (slow to anger + will not leave unpunished) as a segmentation constraint in Phase 2 tooling, not merely a translator note.
Route all Nahum 3:1-5 material (city of blood, harlotries, nakedness/shame) through combined native-speaker + theologian review per the existing honor/shame convention.

Library content is free and openly licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 — share and adapt it for non-commercial use, with attribution to tri-bible.ai.