1 Corinthians — Linguistic Gap Analysis (Hmong Language Package)

0. Purpose, Scope, and Method

This document executes PRD Phase 1 Step 8 for the Hmong 1 Corinthians Language Package. It answers four questions the core glossary (08_core_glossary.md) and term registry (assets/bible_term_registry.json) catalog but do not themselves analyze structurally:

1. Doctrine vocabulary matrix — for each of the ten assigned doctrines, what Hmong vocabulary is actually available, where does it fall short, and what is the recommended generation strategy?
2. Missing vocabulary vs. crowded semantic neighborhoods — where does Hmong have no word at all for a load-bearing concept (a true lexical gap), versus where does Hmong have one word doing too much doctrinal work across multiple biblical and traditional-religion senses (a crowding problem requiring fencing)?
3. Transliteration vs. paraphrase — for every proper name, technical term, and untranslatable formula in the book, which strategy was chosen and why?
4. Ranked highest-risk ambiguities — across the full 16 chapters, which specific translation decisions carry the greatest risk of doctrinal inversion or collision if mishandled in Phase 2 generation?

Scope is the entire book, chapters 1–16, per the full-book-coverage mandate. Every chapter is explicitly logged in §6 even where it contributes no new terms beyond what is already fixed in the Romans-baseline TM. Nothing in this document contradicts assets/translation_memory.json; where a Romans-baseline term recurs in 1 Corinthians, it is reused verbatim and only its new contextual risk is analyzed here.

---

1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

Doctrine	Available Hmong Vocabulary	Structural Weakness	Recommended Generation Strategy
1. The Resurrection of Christ and Believers	kev sawv hauv qhov tuag rov qab los (resurrection); raug tsa sawv hauv qhov tuag rov qab los (he was raised); tshwm los rau...pom (he appeared); lub cev tshiab uas raug hloov los ntawm Vaj Ntsuj Plig / lub cev ntawm ntiajteb no (spiritual/natural body); tau tas sim neej / pw tsaug zog (fallen asleep)	Hmong has no native concept of a body returning to bodily life after death — only souls that linger, are ritually called back (hu plig), or become venerated ancestor-spirits (dab qhuas). Every available phrase is a constructed periphrasis, not an inherited theological term, so there is zero pre-existing doctrinal scaffolding to lean on; the paraphrase must do 100% of the doctrinal work unaided.	Never allow the resurrection cluster to be shortened to bare tuag rov qab (“come back from death”) without the full hauv qhov tuag rov qab los phrase, and never let “spiritual body” be rendered with bare ntsuj plig. Every occurrence in a lesson must carry at least one explicit contrast clause distinguishing bodily resurrection from soul-calling/ancestor-spirit persistence (see §3.3, §5 rank #3).
2. Christian Unity versus Factionalism	pawg ntseeg ntawm Vajtswv (church of God); kev sib cais ua pab ua pawg (divisions); kev khav theeb (boasting); raug hu (called); tus Tub Txib (apostle); qhev (servant/slave)	The vocabulary itself is stable and low-collision (unlike most of this book’s terms), but the social substrate is a live risk: Hmong clan (xeem) and lineage loyalty are a genuine, positively-valued organizing principle in real life, which is precisely the pattern (“I follow Paul,” “I follow Apollos”) Paul condemns as sub-Christian. The linguistic gap is not lexical but pragmatic — the words transfer cleanly, but the underlying social logic they must overturn does not.	Teaching notes accompanying kev sib cais ua pab ua pawg must explicitly name clan/lineage-loyalty patterns as the functional analogy being critiqued, without implying clan structure itself is condemned — only its transfer into the church’s ultimate loyalty.
3. The Cross as Wisdom and Power	tswvyim (wisdom); kev ruam (foolishness); Ntoo Khaub Lig (the cross); hwjchim (power, always Vajtswv hwjchim); lub ntiajteb (world)	Tswvyim is a crowded term (see §3.1): it denotes both elder/ancestral wisdom and the shaman’s specialized spiritual insight, both positively valued categories in Hmong culture. Paul’s paradox — wisdom hidden in shame and weakness — has no ready-made Hmong linguistic vehicle, because both competing referents (elder wisdom, shamanic insight) are prestige categories, never associated with public humiliation or execution.	Tswvyim applied to the cross must never stand alone; every occurrence requires an explicit “hidden in weakness/shame, not in elder prestige or spiritual power-display” contrast clause. Hwjchim at 1:18-25 carries a sharpened version of its baseline qualifier requirement: the specific paradox of power-through-execution (not merely power-in-general) must be unpacked, since the Hmong shamanic power-display pattern runs in the opposite direction (strength shown through spectacle, not humiliation).
4. Church Discipline and Holiness	kev raug ua kom dawb huv (sanctification); cov dawb huv (saints); lub tuam tsev ntawm Vajtswv (temple); kev deev luag / kev sib deev tsis raws li Vajtswv Txoj Kevcai (sexual immorality); muab tso rau...dab Ntxwg Nyoog (deliver to Satan); keeb tsuas (leaven)	This doctrine sits at the intersection of three separately-crowded neighborhoods at once: dawb huv (ritual purity), tuam tsev (spirit-shrine), and curse/exclusion practice (foob). No single term is merely “unfamiliar” — each has a competing, currently-practiced traditional-religion referent that could actively invert the doctrine if the fencing lapses even once.	Mandatory triple-fencing: (a) dawb huv always taught as status conferred by God’s call, never ritually self-achieved; (b) lub tuam tsev always taught with explicit exclusivity language (“God’s Spirit alone dwells here, no other spirit may”); (c) muab tso rau...dab Ntxwg Nyoog always taught as restorative fellowship-removal, never an invoked curse. See §3.2, §3.4, §5 rank #2 and #7.
5. Marriage and Singleness	kev sib yuav (marriage); tus tsis tau yuav txiv/poj niam / tus ntxhais dawb huv tsis tau yuav txiv (unmarried/virgin); kev sib nrauj (divorce); dab tshuav / txoj cai ntawm lub cev (conjugal obligation)	The gap here is sociological rather than lexical: Hmong marriage vocabulary exists and transfers, but the entire social frame (bride-price nqe mis nqe hno, clan-arranged unions, ancestor-invoking wedding rites, and — critically — the social stigma attached to unmarried adult status, especially for women) runs in the opposite evaluative direction from Paul’s mutual-consent, one-flesh ethic and his positive framing of singleness as spiritually advantageous.	Every use of the virgin/unmarried cluster requires a countercultural framing note (singleness as calling, not deficiency); every use of kev sib yuav in the mutual-obligation passages (7:3-5) requires an explicit note that Paul’s mutuality claim overrides customary unequal marital-authority framing.
6. Christian Liberty and Idol Meat	nqaij fij rau dab mlom (food offered to idols); kev pehawm dab mlom (idolatry); dab (demons); rooj mov ntawm tus Tswv / rooj mov ntawm dab (Lord’s table/table of demons); txoj cai (los sis kev ywj pheej) (liberty); kev paub (knowledge)	This is the single most concrete, currently-practiced collision in the entire book: household/clan meat-offerings to spirits (fij dab, fij xwm kab) followed by eating the offered meat is not a historical analogue but an ongoing practice in many Hmong communities. There is no linguistic gap — the vocabulary is exact — but that exactness is itself the danger: it makes the biblical text read as directly commenting on a live, current household practice.	This doctrine carries the highest escalation requirement in the whole book. No lesson may present Paul’s nuanced position (“the idol is nothing,” yet limit liberty for the weak) as either blanket permission (implying tolerance of ongoing spirit-offering meals) or blanket prohibition (erasing Paul’s liberty argument). Mandatory human theologian + native-speaker review, no automated bypass. See §5 rank #1.
7. The Lord’s Supper	Rooj Mov Nco Txog tus Tswv (the Lord’s Supper); khoom noj mov / khob (bread/cup); kev nco txog (Yexus Khetos txoj kev tuag) (remembrance); paub cais lub cev (discern the body); Lus Cog Tseg Tshiab (new covenant)	Hmong has a rich, active ritual-meal vocabulary for feeding and honoring the dead (noj tsiab, nqe tuag memorial-feeding rites) that is structurally similar in form (a commemorative meal referencing a deceased person) to the Lord’s Supper, but theologically opposite in function (ongoing relationship-maintenance with a departed spirit vs. a fixed, unrepeatable commemoration of a once-for-all, already-completed atoning death by a now-living Lord).	kev nco txog must never appear without the qualifying clause anchoring it to Christ’s death; Rooj Mov Nco Txog tus Tswv must always be introduced with an explicit contrast to ancestor-memorial feeding rites at first occurrence in any lesson. paub cais lub cev’s double reference (elements + church body) must never be collapsed to only one sense.
8. Spiritual Gifts and the Body of Christ	ib yam khoom plig ntawm Vaj Ntsuj Plig (spiritual gift); lub cev ntawm Khetos / cov tswv cuab (body of Christ); hais lus dawb (los ntawm Vaj Ntsuj Plig) (tongues); kev cev Vajtswv Lus (prophecy); kev txawj paub seb yog Vaj Ntsuj Plig los sis lwm tus dab (discerning of spirits)	Tongues and prophecy each map disturbingly closely onto a currently-practiced shamanic phenomenon (txiv neeb ua neeb trance-speech; the spirit-medium channeling messages). Unlike Doctrine 6’s collision, which is about a food practice, this collision is about the phenomenological form of the experience itself — altered speech attributed to a spirit source — making it the hardest fencing challenge in the book.	Every occurrence of tongues/prophecy must carry the Vaj Ntsuj Plig source-anchor AND an explicit procedural contrast (ordered self-control, testable content, edificatory purpose vs. trance/divination). The discerning-of-spirits gift (kev txawj paub...) should be foregrounded pedagogically as the interpretive key for the whole cluster — it is the text’s own built-in answer to this collision. See §5 rank #4.
9. Love as the Greater Way	kev hlub (love)	No new vocabulary is surfaced by ch.13 beyond the Romans-baseline kev hlub. The “gap” here is not lexical but rhetorical: ch.13’s argument depends on relative ranking (“the greatest of these is love,” “though I speak with tongues… but have not love”) — a comparative structure that Hmong expresses adequately through existing comparative particles, so no new term is required.	No fencing action required; simply confirm kev hlub retains its stable, low-risk Romans-baseline rendering with no substitution. Ensure ch.13’s rhetorical comparative force (gifts without love = nothing) is preserved in surrounding prose, since this is a discourse-structure risk, not a lexical one.
10. Order in Worship	ntaub npog taubhau (head covering); taub hau (head/authority-source); kev txhim kho pawg ntseeg (edification); kev cai raws qab raws theem (order); [TRANSLATOR REVIEW NEEDED] (14:34-35 women’s silence)	Taub hau as a metaphor for authority-source is a genuine comprehension gap (Hmong does use body-part metaphors for authority, but not this specific head/source mapping in the God-Christ-man-woman chain of 11:3), and ntaub npog taubhau is a comprehension gap regarding the specific 1st-century Corinthian social signal (Hmong turban customs, phuam, carry different meaning). 14:34-35 is a hermeneutical gap, not a linguistic or collision one.	Taub hau requires careful, non-overstated and non-flattened teaching of 11:3’s chain; ntaub npog taubhau requires an illustrative note, not an equivalence claim with phuam. 14:34-35 remains flagged [TRANSLATOR REVIEW NEEDED: interpretive scope] per the inherited escalation rule — no unilateral resolution permitted at Phase 1 or Phase 2.

---

2. Missing Vocabulary: True Lexical Gaps

These are concepts for which Hmong has no existing word or fixed idiom at all — the translator must build a periphrasis from scratch, with no traditional-religion collision risk, but also no pre-existing scaffolding to lean on. These differ from §3’s crowded neighborhoods, where a word does exist but is doctrinally overloaded.

Concept	Greek	Gap Description	Constructed Hmong Solution	Residual Risk
Covenant (as distinct from mere promise)	διαθήκη (11:25)	Hmong lus cog tseg (promise/solemn pledge) captures a personal vow but not the denser legal-theological sense of a ratified, binding, two-party covenant instrument.	Lus Cog Tseg Tshiab (New Covenant), built on the promise-root with an added “new” qualifier.	Medium-High: risk is comprehension collapse (hearers may flatten “covenant” back down to “promise” and miss the ratified, blood-sealed, once-for-all sense at 11:25). Requires a dedicated teaching note every time.
Leavening as corruption-metaphor	ζύμη (5:6-8)	Hmong culinary tradition is rice-based, not leavened-bread-based; there is no native idiom for “a little leaven corrupts the whole batch.”	keeb tsuas (literal loanword/descriptive term for yeast/leavening agent) plus an illustrative note.	Low — comprehension gap only, no collision; a locally-familiar substitute image (e.g., a single rotten item spoiling a stored batch of rice or vegetables) may aid teaching without becoming a permanent TM substitution.
”Untimely born” (violent premature birth self-image)	ἔκτρωμα (15:8)	No fixed Hmong idiom for this specific self-deprecating image exists; the periphrasis is functional but culturally loaded given the weight of miscarriage/stillbirth in Hmong family/spiritual life.	zoo li tus me nyuam yug ua ntej caij (like a child born before its time).	Medium — flagged for native-speaker sensitivity review, not a doctrinal collision, but pastoral care in delivery is warranted.
Sting-of-death insect imagery	κέντρον (15:55)	The scorpion/wasp-sting image Paul uses may not carry the same immediate vividness in a Hmong highland context.	tus xub ntawm txoj kev tuag (the stinger/barb of death) with an illustrative note permitting a locally familiar stinging-insect substitute for teaching purposes only (never altering the fixed scriptural rendering).	Low — comprehension-level only.
Formal “steward of mysteries” household office	οἰκονόμος (4:1-2)	No exact clan-office equivalent; Hmong household-manager roles exist but without the specific “entrusted with a master’s confidential resources, accountable at an audit” legal frame.	tus saib xyuas (uas Vajtswv cob rau lub luag haujlwm).	Medium — comprehension gap; bridges reasonably, no collision.
Mystery (eschatological disclosure)	μυστήριον (15:51)	Not previously logged in the core glossary’s Table 2 despite appearing in the core-passage chapter; Hmong zaj lus zais cia (per the Romans baseline) transfers the “previously hidden, now disclosed” sense adequately, but 15:51’s specific referent (the mystery of bodily transformation at the last trumpet) is denser than the Romans usage.	Reuse Romans-baseline zaj lus zais cia, with a 1 Corinthians-specific teaching note anchoring it to the resurrection-transformation content of 15:51-53.	Low-Medium — gap in the core glossary itself: this occurrence was not logged in 08_core_glossary.md’s Table 2; flagged here for inclusion in the next TM-revision cycle.

---

3. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods Requiring Fencing

Unlike §2, these are cases where a single Hmong word or root already exists and is already in active use for multiple senses — some biblical, some traditional-religious — and Phase 2 generation must actively keep the senses apart through consistent qualifiers, periphrasis, or explicit teaching notes. Failure to fence any of these risks doctrinal collapse, not mere comprehension loss.

3.1 tswvyim (wisdom) — prestige-category crowding

Used for: elder/ancestral wisdom (tswvyim laus), shamanic spiritual insight, worldly rhetorical sophistication (1:17, 2:1-5), and God’s paradoxical cross-wisdom (1:18-2:16, 3:18-20). All four senses are positively valued in ordinary Hmong usage, which is precisely the problem: Paul’s wisdom is hidden in weakness and public shame, a category with no positive-prestige analogue anywhere else the word is used. Fencing strategy: every occurrence of tswvyim applied to the cross/gospel must carry an explicit weakness/shame contrast clause; never let the term stand as a bare positive claim (“God’s wisdom is greater”) without the paradox.

3.2 dawb huv (holy/pure) — ritual-purity crowding

Used for: sanctification (baseline, Romans), saints (1:2), virgin/unmarried status (7:25-38), and the holy kiss (16:20). All four biblical uses risk being heard through the lens of ritual purity from spirit-contamination in folk practice — a repeatable, achievable, ritually-verifiable state, rather than a status conferred once by God’s call and (in sanctification’s case) progressively lived out. Fencing strategy: every occurrence must be anchored to its specific doctrinal frame (God’s call, not ritual technique) at first use per lesson; the four uses must never be allowed to blur into a single generic “purity” gloss.

3.3 ntsuj plig (human soul) vs. psychikos/pneumatikos contrasts — anthropological crowding

This is the single most consequential fencing decision in the entire Language Package. The baseline ntsuj plig (human spirit/soul, High risk, never Vaj-prefixed) is lexically adjacent to, but must be categorically walled off from, the Greek psychikos (“soul-ish”/natural) used in the ch.2 and ch.15 contrasts (natural man vs. spiritual man; natural body vs. spiritual body). If psychikos were rendered using ntsuj plig, two doctrinal disasters follow simultaneously: (a) it implies the unregenerate person lacks a soul (since “spiritual” would then falsely read as “the one who has a soul”), and (b) it implies the resurrection hope is merely “becoming a soul/spirit” — which aligns exactly with the Hmong folk belief that the dead become ancestor-spirits, evacuating the resurrection of its bodily character entirely. Fencing strategy (already adopted in the core glossary and registry, restated here as the highest-priority fence in the book): the natural/spiritual contrast is built entirely on the presence or absence of the Vaj Ntsuj Plig (Holy Spirit) within a person, never on a bare “soul” contrast; the natural/spiritual body contrast is built on perishable-vs-imperishable, Spirit-transformed bodiliness, never on a “body vs. soul” or “physical vs. spirit-being” contrast. Both bodies, natural and spiritual, are bodies.

3.4 hwjchim (power) — three-way crowding

Used for: divine/gospel power (1:18, always Vajtswv hwjchim), delegated civil authority (Romans-baseline cov muaj hwjchim kav teb chaws, not directly recurring in 1 Corinthians but part of the same root-family), and — critically — the exact term for a shaman’s ritual power to negotiate with spirits (txiv neeb). 1 Corinthians sharpens this crowding beyond the Romans baseline by placing hwjchim in direct paradox with public execution-shame at 1:18-25, a configuration the shamanic power-display pattern never uses (shamanic power is displayed through spectacle and success, not humiliation). Fencing strategy: the qualifier Vajtswv hwjchim is necessary but not sufficient here; Phase 2 content must add the specific weakness/shame-paradox teaching note at every occurrence in 1:18-2:5, not merely the generic source-qualifier.

3.5 dab-family crowding (spirit vocabulary)

The book requires four distinct members of the dab word-family to remain lexically distinguishable: dab mlom (idol/idol-image), dab (demons, 10:20-21), dab Ntxwg Nyoog (Satan, proper name), and (by cultural proximity, though not itself a biblical term) dab qhuas (ancestor/household spirits). The registry already isolates dab Ntxwg Nyoog as a proper name distinct from generic dab; this analysis flags the additional risk that identifying dab as the real spiritual power behind idol-sacrifice (10:20-21) could be heard as a blanket denigration of ancestor veneration generally, since ordinary usage does not sharply distinguish “the spirits behind pagan sacrifice” from “the ancestors my family venerates.” Fencing strategy: any lesson using dab for “demons” in 10:20-21 must scope the claim explicitly to spiritual realities behind idol-sacrifice practice, not extend it as a blanket statement about ancestors as persons or about the general category of dab qhuas.

3.6 kevcai root-family crowding

The root kevcai (custom/rite) already carries a documented Critical-risk collision in the Romans baseline (Txoj Kevcai = Mosaic Law, sharing the root with kev cai dab qhuas = “religion,” literally spirit-worship customs). 1 Corinthians adds baptism (kev cai raus dej) and — indirectly, through the marriage-custom discussion of ch.7 — ordinary customary rite vocabulary (kevcai sib yuav, wedding customs) into the same crowded root-family. Fencing strategy: maintain the Romans-baseline qualifier discipline for Txoj Kevcai (ntawm Vajtswv/Mauxes) without exception; keep kev cai raus dej semantically walled off from generic ritual-washing/purification kevcai through the mandatory once-for-all teaching note (already fixed in the baseline); when marriage customs are discussed in ch.7, avoid the bare word kevcai for Christian marriage practice unqualified, to prevent it drifting toward the same root as either the Law or animistic ritual.

3.7 fij (sacrifice/offering) — reused across two senses within 1 Corinthians itself

Unlike Romans, where fij distinguishes only Christ’s atonement from the living-sacrifice ethic, 1 Corinthians reintroduces fij concretely and repeatedly through nqaij fij rau dab mlom (food offered to idols, chs. 8, 10) — now anchored to an ongoing, currently-practiced offering ritual rather than a metaphor. This is a heightened form of the Romans-baseline crowding, not a new one. Fencing strategy: never let fij in the idol-meat discussion drift toward implying any legitimacy or spiritual neutrality of the underlying offering-to-spirits act itself (Paul’s own position is nuanced about eating the meat, never about legitimizing the offering practice); this distinction must be preserved in every lesson on chs. 8–10.

---

4. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions

Term/Name	Greek/Aramaic	Decision	Rationale
Cephas	Κηφᾷς	Transliterate + gloss: Khefas (Petus)	Retains the Aramaic-derived proper name Paul himself uses at 15:5 while immediately bridging to the more familiar Petus, following the established Abba, Leej Txiv retention pattern from the Romans baseline.
Maranatha	Μαρανα θα	Transliterate + mandatory first-use gloss: Maranatha ("Tus Tswv, thov koj los!")	Untranslatable early liturgical acclamation retained by Paul himself in the original; loanword retention with gloss preserves its unique, foreign, worship-formula character, paralleling the Abba precedent.
James, the twelve, five hundred brothers	Ἰάκωβος, οἱ δώδεκα, πεντακόσιοι ἀδελφοί	Transliterate proper names (Yakauj) / paraphrase numeral-groups natively (cov kaum ob tug Tub Txib, dhau tsib pua leej kwvtij)	These function as an evidentiary witness-list; native numeral phrasing keeps the historical-verification force intact for a Hmong reader rather than requiring unfamiliar transliterated group-names.
Anathema	ἀνάθεμα	Paraphrase, flagged: [TRANSLATOR REVIEW NEEDED] raug muab cais tawm thiab poob rau txim	A transliterated loanword would be doctrinally opaque (no existing Hmong Christian usage to anchor it); a paraphrase is required, but the specific “solemn declaration of final divine judgment” sense (as opposed to a routine judgment statement) needs theologian confirmation before becoming a permanent rendering — hence the retained flag rather than an unreviewed permanent gloss.
Speaking in tongues / prophecy / resurrection	γλῶσσα λαλεῖν / προφητεία / ἀνάστασις	Paraphrase, never loanword	Consistent with the Romans-baseline pattern (baptism, propitiation) of rejecting transliterated loanwords for doctrinally load-bearing terms: a loanword would be phonetically opaque to hearers and would sidestep rather than resolve the necessary contrast-teaching against shamanic trance-speech, spirit-medium divination, and soul-calling/ancestor-spirit-persistence beliefs respectively. Native descriptive periphrasis, though longer, keeps the term teachable and contrastable.
New Covenant	καινὴ διαθήκη	Paraphrase built on native root, never loanword: Lus Cog Tseg Tshiab	Consistent with the missing-vocabulary strategy in §2: builds on the existing lus cog tseg (promise) root rather than importing an opaque loanword for “covenant,” preserving intelligibility while requiring a supplementary teaching note for the denser legal sense.
Apollos	Ἀπολλῶς	Transliterate: Apolau (pattern-consistent with Povlauj for Paul, already established in the Romans baseline register)	Proper name with no doctrinal content; standard transliteration convention per §0 of 07_semantic_analysis.md. Logged here for TM-revision inclusion since it does not yet appear in the registry.
Head covering practice	κατακαλύπτω / περιβόλαιον	Paraphrase with illustrative note, no equivalence claim to Hmong turban (phuam) customs	A transliteration is not applicable (this is a practice-description, not a proper name); a direct equivalence claim to phuam would import unrelated social signaling and is explicitly rejected in favor of a comprehension-gap illustrative note.

General transliteration principle confirmed for this book: transliteration is reserved exclusively for (a) proper names with no doctrinal content, and (b) a small class of untranslatable worship-formula loanwords already given precedent by the Romans baseline (Abba) — never for doctrinally load-bearing common nouns/verbs, where paraphrase plus mandatory teaching notes is always preferred, consistent with the Romans-baseline rejection of transliterated loanwords for baptism and propitiation.

---

5. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities (Full Book)

Ranked by combined severity of (a) doctrinal centrality, (b) specificity and currency of the traditional-religion collision, and (c) frequency/density of occurrence:

1. Food offered to idols / idolatry / the Lord’s table vs. table of demons (nqaij fij rau dab mlom, kev pehawm dab mlom, rooj mov ntawm tus Tswv / rooj mov ntawm dab — chs. 8, 10). Ranked highest because this is the only collision in the book corresponding to a currently, actively practiced household ritual rather than a historical or conceptual analogue. Any softening or over-hardening of Paul’s nuanced position risks either endorsing or falsely condemning present-day family practice.

2. Temple of God, corporate and individual (lub tuam tsev ntawm Vajtswv, chs. 3, 6). Directly parallels the household/clan spirit-shrine concept (qhov cim, thaj teev dab) as a spirit’s dwelling-place; without explicit exclusivity teaching at both the corporate and individual-body level, “God’s temple” language could be heard as one spirit-house among others rather than the exclusive, singular indwelling of God’s own Spirit.

3. Resurrection body / natural-spiritual contrast (kev sawv hauv qhov tuag rov qab los; sōma pneumatikon / sōma psychikon; the psychikos/ntsuj plig fencing of §3.3 — ch. 15, the core passage’s own chapter). Ranked this high because it converges with the core passage (15:1-11) itself and because a single lexical slip (using ntsuj plig for psychikos) would collapse the entire chapter’s argument into the exact folk belief (soul/spirit survival, not bodily resurrection) it is written to refute.

4. Tongues / prophecy / discerning of spirits (hais lus dawb, kev cev Vajtswv Lus, kev txawj paub seb yog Vaj Ntsuj Plig los sis lwm tus dab — chs. 12, 13, 14). Ranked high because the collision concerns the phenomenological form of a live spiritual experience (altered speech attributed to spirit-source) rather than an object or practice, making it harder to fence than a food or building metaphor; positively, this cluster also contains the discernment gift itself, the text’s own interpretive safeguard.

5. The Lord’s Supper as remembrance (Rooj Mov Nco Txog tus Tswv, kev nco txog, ch. 11). Ranked here for its structural similarity (a commemorative meal referencing the dead) to ancestor-memorial feeding rites (noj tsiab, nqe tuag), combined with weekly/regular recurrence in church practice, which increases exposure frequency relative to a one-time doctrinal statement.

6. Wisdom (tswvyim, chs. 1–3). Ranked here because, unlike most collisions in this book which involve a negative traditional-religion category (idols, curses, spirit-possession), this one involves a positively prized cultural category (elder/ancestral and shamanic wisdom), making the required paradox (wisdom-in-shame) counterintuitive in a uniquely difficult way — hearers must be taught to see prestige-wisdom as the very thing being subverted, not affirmed.

7. Deliver to Satan / anathema (muab tso rau...dab Ntxwg Nyoog, anathema — chs. 5, 16). Ranked here for direct structural resemblance to invoked-curse practice (foob); the risk is that church discipline itself could be reframed by hearers as a form of spiritual attack rather than restorative fellowship-removal.

8. He appeared / resurrection witnesses (tshwm los rau...pom, ch. 15:5-8). Ranked here for its proximity to ghost-sighting/ancestor-spirit-visitation folk experience (dab tuag tshwm); lower than items 1-7 because the surrounding creedal, evidentiary framing (named witnesses, numbers, “if it were not true…”) provides significant built-in contrast support.

9. Saints / virgin / holy kiss (cov dawb huv, tus ntxhais dawb huv, kev sib hnia dawb huv — chs. 1, 7, 16). Ranked here for the recurring dawb huv ritual-purity crowding (§3.2); lower-ranked than items 1-8 because none of these three individual occurrences carries as much doctrinal weight on its own as the higher-ranked items, though the cumulative fencing burden across three separate contexts is non-trivial.

10. Grace, triply repeated (txiaj ntsim, 15:10). Ranked lowest among the Critical-tier items only because this term inherits an already fully fenced, permanently forbidden-substitution rule from the Romans baseline (koob hmoov forbidden); the risk is well-understood and well-guarded, but it is included here because 15:10’s triple repetition makes any lapse in this specific verse unusually consequential for the core passage’s grace-alone argument.

---

6. Full-Book Chapter Coverage Log

Per the full-book-coverage mandate, every chapter of 1 Corinthians is logged below, confirming either substantive new-term analysis (cross-referenced to §1-§5 above) or explicit “reviewed, no new linguistic-gap issues beyond inherited baseline terms” status.

Ch.	Coverage Status
1	Substantive: church/calling/wisdom/foolishness/cross/power/boasting introduced (§1 Doctrines 2-3, §3.1, §3.4, §5 rank 6).
2	Substantive: mind of Christ, natural/spiritual man contrast — highest-priority anthropological fence (§3.3, §5 rank 3 precursor).
3	Substantive: temple of God (corporate), world/wisdom continuation (§1 Doctrine 4, §5 rank 2).
4	Substantive: steward of mysteries, reckon/impute, boasting continuation (§2 missing-vocabulary steward entry).
5	Substantive: sexual immorality, leaven, deliver to Satan (§1 Doctrine 4, §2 leaven entry, §5 rank 7).
6	Substantive: temple of God (individual body), redemption/bought-with-a-price, justification/sanctification triad (§1 Doctrine 4, §5 rank 2).
7	Substantive: marriage, unmarried/virgin, divorce, conjugal obligation, calling (§1 Doctrine 5).
8	Substantive: food offered to idols (introduced), knowledge/love pairing, conscience, liberty (§1 Doctrine 6, §5 rank 1).
9	Reviewed: apostleship, servant/slave, liberty continuation — no new collision terms beyond §1 Doctrine 6/2 inherited items.
10	Substantive: idolatry, demons, Lord’s table/table of demons, fellowship/participation escalation, worship-object anchoring (§1 Doctrine 6, §3.5, §3.7, §5 rank 1).
11	Substantive: the Lord’s Supper, remembrance, discern the body, new covenant, head covering, headship (§1 Doctrines 7 & 10, §2 covenant entry, §5 rank 5).
12	Substantive: body of Christ, spiritual gifts, tongues, prophecy, discerning of spirits, interpretation (§1 Doctrine 8, §3.4 hwjchim cross-reference, §5 rank 4).
13	Reviewed: love as the greater way — no new vocabulary beyond baseline kev hlub; rhetorical-structure risk only (§1 Doctrine 9).
14	Substantive: edification, order, tongues/prophecy regulation continuation, women’s-silence interpretive flag (§1 Doctrine 10, §5 rank 4).
15	Substantive (core passage chapter): resurrection, he was raised, he appeared, fallen asleep, spiritual/natural body, imperishable, victory/sting of death, grace (triple), received/delivered formula, mystery (newly logged, §2) (§1 Doctrine 1, §5 ranks 3, 8, 10).
16	Substantive: the collection, holy kiss, Maranatha, anathema (§1 Doctrine 2, §4 transliteration entries, §5 rank 7).

All sixteen chapters are confirmed within scope; none is treated as out-of-scope or silently omitted.

---

7. Summary Recommendations for Phase 2 Generation

1. Adopt the anthropological fence of §3.3 (ntsuj plig never used for psychikos) as the single highest-priority structural rule inherited by this document — a violation here would compromise the core passage itself.
2. Treat §5’s ranked list as the escalation-priority order when allocating human theologian review time across a full curriculum build, in addition to (not replacing) the doctrine-based routing already fixed in the Romans-baseline requirements framework.
3. Log Apolau (Apollos) and the ch.15:51 mystery occurrence (§2, §4) for inclusion in the next formal TM-revision cycle, since both are newly surfaced by this analysis and not yet present in the registry.
4. Carry forward all crowded-neighborhood fencing rules in §3 as mandatory teaching-note triggers for any Phase 2 lesson, footnote, or quiz item touching the relevant term, consistent with the qualifier-enforcement discipline already established in 12_ai_translation_requirements.md §2.
5. This document does not itself alter any TM entry; all recommended fencing strategies operate within, and do not contradict, the existing Romans-baseline fixed renderings.