3 John — Semantic Analysis (Hmong Language Package, Phase 1)

§0. Governing Conventions

This document extends the Romans Hmong Language Package baseline and does not override it. Where a term below already exists in assets/translation_memory.json (e.g. love, truth, witness, peace, faith_believe, nations_gentiles, servant_slave_doulos, debtor, god, lord, jesus_christ), the exact recorded Hmong string is reused without modification. All new terms surfaced here are candidates for a future TM-revision review and are explicitly marked [NEW TERM — pending TM revision]. Script: RPA. Register: formal/literary, consistent with the existing Hmong Bible translation tradition (Vajtswv Txoj Lus).

3 John is a single-chapter, 14-verse personal letter from “the elder” (traditionally John the Apostle) to Gaius, commending hospitality to traveling gospel-workers, condemning Diotrephes’ prideful obstruction of that hospitality, and commending Demetrius as a model of faithful, truth-attested character. Because the book has only one chapter, and the assigned core passage (3 John 1:1-14) is the entire book, the verse-by-verse treatment in §2 below constitutes complete full-book coverage — there is no remaining chapter to analyze separately. §3 formally logs this.

---

§1. Book Overview

• Author/persona: ὁ πρεσβύτερος, “the elder” — an authoritative, personally-known pastoral figure (traditionally the Apostle John), writing with paternal affection and apostolic authority but without invoking the title “apostle” (contrast Romans 1:1’s tus Tub Txib).
• Occasion: A private commendatory/travel letter for itinerant gospel-workers (“the brothers,” v.3, v.5, v.10), addressing a local hospitality crisis caused by a domineering local leader, Diotrephes.
• Structure: Greeting and prayer-wish (vv.1-2) → commendation of Gaius’ truth-walk and hospitality (vv.3-8) → indictment of Diotrephes (vv.9-11) → commendation of Demetrius (v.12) → closing (vv.13-14).
• Doctrinal load: Despite its brevity, the letter carries five assigned doctrines, several of which intersect with Hmong-specific collision risks around kinship-bounded hospitality, clan-headman status-seeking, the animistic multi-soul concept, and shamanic exorcism/vision vocabulary — flagged in detail below.

---

§2. Core Passage Verse-by-Verse Analysis (3 John 1:1-14)

Verse 1

Greek: Ὁ πρεσβύτερος Γαΐῳ τῷ ἀγαπητῷ, ὃν ἐγὼ ἀγαπῶ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ. Gloss: “The elder, to Gaius the beloved, whom I love in truth.”

• πρεσβύτερος (presbyteros) — literal: “elder, older man”; semantic range: an aged person; a recognized office-holder of pastoral/teaching authority in the early church (cf. Acts 14:23, 1 Tim 5:17), here likely a self-designation by an apostle in old age. English variants: “the elder,” “the old man.” Contextual theological meaning: a title carrying both personal authority and pastoral affection, contrasted with Diotrephes’ self-seeking primacy later in the letter. Hmong risk: [NEW TERM — pending TM revision]. Candidate rendering: tus kev txwj laus (lit. “the elder person”). Medium risk — positively bridges to the Hmong clan-elder honor system (txwj laus), but the bridge is double-edged: hearers may default to a purely secular village/clan-elder referent (age-based social seniority) and miss the term’s apostolic pastoral-teaching authority. Requires a teaching note distinguishing this office from mere seniority-by-age.
• ἀγαπητός (agapētos) — literal: “beloved, dear one”; semantic range: a term of affectionate address within the Christian family. English variants: “beloved,” “dear friend.” Contextual meaning: repeated address to Gaius (also vv.2, 5, 11) marking him as a spiritually cherished son in the faith. Hmong risk: [NEW TERM — pending TM revision]. Candidate rendering: tus kuv hlub (lit. “the one I love”), built on the already-fixed TM noun kev hlub (love). Low risk.
• ἀγαπάω (agapaō) — reuses baseline TM entry love → kev hlub (agapē) exactly as recorded. Low risk, per baseline.
• ἀλήθεια (alētheia) — reuses baseline TM entry truth → qhov tseeb exactly as recorded. Low risk, per baseline. Note: “whom I love in truth” (ἐν ἀληθείᾳ) introduces the letter’s dominant theme-word, occurring 6 more times (vv.3 [x2], 4, 8, 12 [x2]); every occurrence must use the fixed qhov tseeb.

Verse 2

Greek: Ἀγαπητέ, περὶ πάντων εὔχομαί σε εὐοδοῦσθαι καὶ ὑγιαίνειν, καθὼς εὐοδοῦταί σου ἡ ψυχή. Gloss: “Beloved, concerning all things I pray that you may prosper and be in health, just as your soul prospers.”

• εὔχομαι (euchomai) — literal: “I wish/pray”; a personal wish-prayer, weaker than the cultic proseuchomai. Contextual meaning: an epistolary greeting convention. Hmong risk: [NEW TERM]. Candidate: thov Vajtswv or simply xav kom. Low risk.
• εὐοδοῦσθαι (euodousthai) — literal: “to have a good/prosperous journey/road,” extended to “to prosper, succeed, go well.” Semantic range: general well-being, material and circumstantial success. English variants: “prosper,” “go well,” “be successful.” Hmong risk: [NEW TERM — pending TM revision]. Candidate: vam meej / lam lig zoo. HIGH RISK. This is the letter’s single most doctrinally sensitive comprehension-and-collision point: (1) it directly borders the domain already flagged Critical in the Romans baseline TM for koob hmoov — an outcome-word for “prosper” risks being heard through the Hmong fate/fortune (hmoov) framework, where prosperity is granted by ancestors/spirits contingent on ritual correctness, rather than as an ordinary personal wish; (2) it borders prosperity-gospel drift, which 12_ai_translation_requirements.md §5 and §9 already forbid as sectarian-adjacent vocabulary. Must be taught explicitly as a personal epistolary greeting-wish, never a doctrinal promise linking material prosperity to spiritual condition, and must never be rendered with koob hmoov vocabulary.
• ὑγιαίνειν (hygiainein) — literal: “to be healthy/sound,” root of “hygiene.” Hmong risk: [NEW TERM]. Candidate: muaj kev noj qab haus huv / muaj zog. Low risk — ordinary health-wish, no collision.
• ψυχή (psychē) — literal: “soul, life, inner self”; semantic range: the seat of personal life, will, and inner well-being — a distinct Greek word from πνεῦμα (pneuma), which the Romans baseline TM already renders ntsuj plig for the anthropological human spirit (entry human_spirit_soul). English variants: “soul,” “life,” “inner being.” Contextual theological meaning: Gaius’ inner spiritual condition, contrasted with (but wished to be matched by) his outward circumstances. Hmong risk: [NEW TERM — pending TM revision]. HIGH RISK. If rendered with the same ntsuj plig already fixed for anthropological pneuma, “your soul prospers” risks being heard through the Hmong multi-soul animistic framework (plig), in which one or more wandering souls may be lost, stolen by spirits, or require ritual retrieval (hu plig). “Your soul prospers” could then be misheard as a statement that Gaius’ wandering soul has not been lost — a completely different (superstitious) claim from Paul’s/John’s intended sense of inner spiritual/moral well-being. Recommend a disambiguating periphrasis distinct from the fixed ntsuj plig collocation, e.g. koj sab hauv ntsws (“your inner being”) or an explicit qualifying clause anchoring the term to spiritual-moral condition, with a mandatory first-occurrence teaching note distinguishing it from hu plig ritual soul-retrieval. Flagged for human theologian + native speaker review before a permanent TM entry is set.

Verse 3

Greek: ἐχάρην γὰρ λίαν ἐρχομένων ἀδελφῶν καὶ μαρτυρούντων σου τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, καθὼς σὺ ἐν ἀληθεί�ᾳ περιπατεῖς. Gloss: “For I rejoiced greatly when brothers came and testified to your truth, just as you walk in truth.”

• χαίρω / ἐχάρην (chairō) — literal: “I rejoiced/was glad”; root of chara (joy). Hmong risk: [NEW TERM]. Candidate: zoo siab / muaj kev zoo siab. Low risk — stable everyday and liturgical term, no collision.
• ἀδελφός (adelphos, pl. ἀδελφοί) — literal: “brother”; semantic range: biological brother, or (dominant NT sense) fellow believer/member of the spiritual family — here specifically the itinerant gospel-workers Gaius hosted. Hmong risk: [NEW TERM — pending TM revision]. Candidate: cov kwvtij (lit. “kinsmen/clan-brothers”). Medium risk — kwvtij is a strong, warm Hmong term but is structurally tied to blood/clan kinship; using it for believers in general (including total strangers, as in v.5) risks implying the hospitality obligation applies only to those treated as if they were literal clan-kin, when the letter’s whole point in vv.5-8 is to commend hospitality to genuine outsiders (ξένους, “strangers”) as well. Requires a teaching note that “brothers” here transcends clan boundaries.
• μαρτυρέω (martyreō) — verbal form of the baseline TM entry witness (martys, → tus timkhawv). Here used verbally: “testified to your truth.” Candidate verb rendering: ua timkhawv rau qhov tseeb ntawm koj, built from the fixed noun. Low risk, consistent with baseline.
• περιπατέω (peripateō) — literal: “to walk, walk around”; semantic range (metaphorical, Pauline/Johannine idiom): to conduct one’s life, live habitually in a certain manner. English variants: “walk,” “live,” “conduct oneself.” Hmong risk: [NEW TERM]. Candidate: ua neej raws li qhov tseeb (lit. “to live one’s life according to the truth”). Low-Medium risk — the “walking” metaphor for conduct is not native to Hmong idiom in the same way, but transfers by paraphrase without collision; comprehension-level only.

Verse 4

Greek: μειζοτέραν τούτων οὐκ ἔχω χαράν, ἵνα ἀκούω τὰ ἐμὰ τέκνα ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ περιπατοῦντα. Gloss: “I have no greater joy than this, to hear that my children are walking in truth.”

• τέκνα (tekna, sg. teknon) — literal: “children”; semantic range: biological offspring, or (here) spiritual children — those the elder brought to faith/discipled. Hmong risk: [NEW TERM]. Candidate: kuv cov me tub me nyuam (spiritual sense marked contextually, distinct from the already-fixed TM phrase adoption_as_sons which concerns God’s adoption of believers, not a human minister’s disciples). Low-Medium risk — comprehension gap only (spiritual, non-biological fatherhood-in-the-faith is a familiar concept in Hmong Christian usage already through discipleship language); no collision with traditional religion.

Verse 5

Greek: Ἀγαπητέ, πιστὸν ποιεῖς ὃ ἐὰν ἐργάσῃ εἰς τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς καὶ τοῦτο ξένους, Gloss: “Beloved, you do a faithful thing whatever you do for the brothers, and especially strangers,”

• πιστός (pistos) — literal: “faithful, trustworthy, reliable”; shares the root of the baseline TM entry faith_believe (pistis/pisteuō → kev ntseeg / ntseeg), but here functions adjectivally to describe an action’s trustworthy, faith-consistent character, not a person’s saving belief. Hmong risk: [NEW TERM — pending TM revision]. Candidate: ua ib yam uas ncaj thiab tso siab tau. Medium risk — must be kept distinct in teaching notes from the justification-faith sense of kev ntseeg (Romans doctrine 1, Critical tier) so hearers do not conflate “doing a faithful/trustworthy deed” with “the faith by which one is justified”; the two senses share a root but not a referent.
• ξένος (xenos) — literal: “stranger, foreigner, guest”; semantic range: an unrelated outsider, one not of one’s own household/clan, who is nonetheless owed hospitality in the ancient Mediterranean guest-code. English variants: “stranger,” “guest,” “foreigner.” Contextual theological meaning: the itinerant missionaries Gaius supported were not his kin — his hospitality to them is commended precisely because it crosses ordinary social boundaries. Hmong risk: [NEW TERM — pending TM revision]. Medium-High risk. Hmong hospitality customs (kev tos qhua) are real and strong, but structurally oriented around clan and kinship networks; an unrelated itinerant stranger sits outside the instinctive obligation-circle that governs ordinary Hmong guest-hospitality. Rendering this term without an explicit teaching note risks under-motivating the very point of the passage — that gospel-hospitality is owed to those with no clan claim on the host. Candidate rendering: cov qhua txawv teb chaws / cov neeg tsis paub (lit. “unfamiliar/unknown guests”), always paired with the doctrinal note that gospel-obligation here exceeds clan-boundary hospitality.

Verse 6

Greek: οἳ ἐμαρτύρησάν σου τῇ ἀγάπῃ ἐνώπιον ἐκκλησίας· οὕς καλῶς ποιήσεις προπέμψας ἀξίως τοῦ θεοῦ· Gloss: “who testified of your love before the church: whom you will do well to send on their way worthily of God:”

• ἐκκλησία (ekklēsia) — literal: “assembly, called-out gathering”; the local congregation. Hmong risk: [NEW TERM — pending TM revision]. Candidate: pawg ntseeg — this string is already used descriptively inside the Romans baseline TM (deacon_servant entry: “tu pawg ntseeg”) though never given its own top-level entry. Low risk — established, stable Hmong Christian term; formally promoted here to its own glossary entry since 3 John’s Diotrephes narrative (vv.9-10) turns on control over “the church.”
• προπέμπω (propempō) — literal: “to send forward, escort, send off with provisions”; semantic range: the ancient practice of equipping and physically accompanying a departing traveler partway on their journey, with material provision. English variants: “send on their way,” “send forth,” “help on their journey.” Hmong risk: [NEW TERM — pending TM revision]. Candidate: xa kev / pab kev mus (lit. “help/escort the road/journey”). Medium risk — comprehension gap: this concrete ancient travel-provisioning custom has a real Hmong-culture analogue (provisioning a departing guest with food/supplies for the road) but requires an illustrative cultural note to fully carry the sense of material sponsorship of gospel work, not merely a polite farewell.
• ἀξίως τοῦ θεοῦ (axiōs tou theou) — literal: “worthily of God”; a manner-adverbial marking the standard by which hospitality is to be rendered — God’s own honor, not mere social reciprocity. Hmong risk: [NEW TERM]. Candidate: raws li tsim nyog rau Vajtswv. Low risk, but doctrinally load-bearing: must not be flattened into ordinary Hmong hospitality-reciprocity motivation (host expects future social credit/return-hosting); the standard is God’s honor, not clan reputation.

Verse 7

Greek: ὑπὲρ γὰρ τοῦ ὀνόματος ἐξῆλθον μηδὲν λαμβάνοντες ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνικῶν. Gloss: “because for the sake of the Name they went out, taking nothing from the Gentiles/outsiders.”

• ὄνομα (onoma, “the Name”) — literal: “name”; here an absolute, titular use — “the Name” as shorthand for the name/person of Jesus Christ, common in early Christian usage (cf. Acts 5:41). Hmong risk: [NEW TERM — pending TM revision]. Candidate: lub npe (ntawm Yexus Khetos) — mandatory qualifier parenthetical required at first occurrence, per the pattern already established for Txoj Kevcai in the Romans baseline. Medium risk. Must never be rendered using hu-family vocabulary (the verb for ritually calling/summoning a spirit or calling back a soul), which the Romans baseline TM (12_ai_translation_requirements.md §3.1) already forbids for “calling on the name of the Lord” — the same collision risk applies here: “for the sake of the Name” must not sound like invoking a name as a ritual-power formula.
• ἐθνικός (ethnikos, “Gentile/pagan/outsider”) — literal: “of the nations”; semantic range: here narrower and more pejorative than the baseline TM entry nations_gentiles (ethnē → lwm Haiv Neeg, a neutral ethnic-contrast term in Romans). In 3 John 7, ἐθνικός means specifically “non-Christian outsiders” from whom the missionaries deliberately refused material support, to remain unbeholden and avoid the appearance of profiting from unbelievers. Hmong risk: [NEW TERM — pending TM revision]. Medium risk. Candidate: cov tsis ntseeg Vajtswv (lit. “those who do not believe in God”) rather than reusing lwm Haiv Neeg, to preserve the narrower, context-specific nuance (refusal of patronage) and avoid confusing it with the Romans-established neutral ethnic-contrast sense.

Verse 8

Greek: ἡμεῖς οὖν ὀφείλομεν ὑπολαμβάνειν τοὺς τοιούτους, ἵνα συνεργοὶ γινώμεθα τῇ ἀληθεί�ᾳ. Gloss: “We therefore ought to support such people, so that we may become fellow workers with the truth.”

• ὀφείλω (opheilō, “I ought, am obligated”) — shares the root of the baseline TM entry debtor (opheiletēs → tus tshuav nqi), but here as a verb of moral obligation rather than a noun for a debt-holder. Hmong risk: [NEW TERM]. Candidate: yuav tsum / tsim nyog. Low risk — comprehension-level distinction only; no collision, but should be noted as related to, not identical with, the fixed tus tshuav nqi debt-noun.
• ὑπολαμβάνω (hypolambanō, “receive, support, take up”) — literal: “to take up under, support”; here specifically financial/material hospitality-support for gospel workers, distinct from the simple “welcome” sense of ἐπιδέχομαι below. Hmong risk: [NEW TERM — pending TM revision]. Candidate: txhawb nqa / pab nyiaj txiag rau. Medium risk — comprehension gap; must be kept distinguishable from epidechomai (“welcome/receive,” the term Diotrephes refuses) so the letter’s two hospitality-verbs are not flattened into one.
• συνεργός (synergos, “fellow worker”) — literal: “one who works together with.” Hmong risk: [NEW TERM — pending TM revision]. Candidate: koom tes ua haujlwm rau qhov tseeb. Medium risk with an important disambiguation note: the Romans baseline TM explicitly rejected koom tes as a softening substitute for doulos (servant/slave, entry servant_slave_doulos) because it erases the total-surrender force of that specific term. That rejection is scoped narrowly to doulos; here the underlying Greek word is the genuinely distinct term synergos (“co-worker”), for which koom tes is the doctrinally correct and unproblematic rendering. This note is recorded explicitly to prevent a future reviewer from misapplying the Romans-baseline rejection to this unrelated term.

Verse 9

Greek: Ἔγραψα τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ· ἀλλ’ ὁ φιλοπρωτεύων αὐτῶν Διοτρέφης οὐκ ἐπιδέχεται ἡμᾶς. Gloss: “I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not receive us.”

• φιλοπρωτεύω (philoprōteuō, “to love being first/preeminent”) — literal: a compound of philos (loving) + prōtos (first); a rare word (this may be its only extant occurrence in Greek literature to this point), coined to capture obsessive self-exaltation to top rank. English variants: “loves to be first,” “loves preeminence,” “loves to be in charge.” Contextual theological meaning: the letter’s central negative case-study — leadership corrupted by pride and self-promotion rather than service. Hmong risk: [NEW TERM — pending TM revision]. HIGH RISK. Candidate: nyiam ua thawj coj tshaj lwm tus (lit. “loves to be leader/first above all others”), with a mandatory pejorative-framing qualifier. Hmong clan society places very high, generally positive cultural value on attaining recognized headman/first-rank status (thawj coj) within a clan or lineage; rendering Diotrephes’ sin with ordinary “leader” vocabulary risks hearers concluding his fault was simply being an assertive leader, rather than prideful, church-usurping self-exaltation that displaces legitimate apostolic authority. Requires an explicit teaching note contrasting godly, service-oriented leadership (cf. the presbyteros and diakonos/leitourgos baseline entries) with self-seeking primacy.
• ἐπιδέχομαι (epidechomai, “to welcome, receive, accept”) — literal: “to receive to oneself”; used 3x in this letter (v.9, and twice more in v.10) as the letter’s central hospitality-reception verb, contrasted with Gaius’ welcome of strangers (vv.5-8). Hmong risk: [NEW TERM — pending TM revision]. Candidate: tos txais. Medium-High risk — this is the pivot-verb of the whole Diotrephes narrative; its negation (“does not receive us”) is the concrete act of sin being condemned, so its rendering must retain full customary Hmong hospitality-welcome force (so that its refusal reads as a real social/spiritual violation) while being kept lexically distinct from hypolambanō (v.8, material support) to preserve the letter’s two-part hospitality vocabulary.

Verse 10

Greek: διὰ τοῦτο, ἐὰν ἔλθω, ὑπομνήσω αὐτοῦ τὰ ἔργα ἃ ποιεῖ, λόγοις πονηροῖς καταλαλῶν ἡμᾶς, καὶ μὴ ἀρκούμενος ἐπὶ τούτοις οὔτε αὐτὸς ἐπιδέχεται τοὺς ἀδελφούς, καὶ τοὺς βουλομένους κωλύει καὶ ἐκ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐκβάλλει. Gloss: “Therefore, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, speaking against us with evil words. And not satisfied with that, he himself does not receive the brothers, and hinders those wanting to, and casts them out of the church.”

• καταλαλέω (katalaleō, “to speak against, slander”) — literal: “to talk down against.” Hmong risk: [NEW TERM]. Candidate: hais lus phem tawm tsam. Low risk — comprehension-level, no collision.
• βούλομαι (boulomai, “to want, wish, be willing”) — ordinary volition verb. Hmong risk: [NEW TERM]. Candidate: cov uas xav. Low risk.
• κωλύω (kōlyō, “to hinder, prevent, forbid”) — Hmong risk: [NEW TERM]. Candidate: thaiv / txwv tsis pub. Low risk.
• ἐκβάλλω (ekballō, “to cast out, throw out, expel”) — literal: “to throw/cast out”; semantic range: forcible ejection, used elsewhere in the NT both for mundane expulsion and, very frequently, for casting out demons/unclean spirits (e.g., Mark 1:34, 39; Matt 8:16). Contextual theological meaning: Diotrephes’ unjust, authoritarian expulsion of faithful believers from the local congregation — an abuse of church discipline, not a legitimate spiritual act. Hmong risk: [NEW TERM — pending TM revision]. CRITICAL RISK. The most natural Hmong verb-family for forceful ritual “casting out” is ntiab (as in ntiab dab, “to drive out/expel a spirit,” the core verb of shamanic exorcism practice performed by a txiv neeb). Rendering Diotrephes’ expulsion of believers with ntiab-family vocabulary risks one of two serious misreadings: (a) that Diotrephes was performing a legitimate spiritual-cleansing/exorcism-like act rather than committing a sin of prideful church abuse, or (b) that “casting someone out of the church” is structurally the same category of act as expelling a demon, blurring church discipline with shamanic exorcism cosmology. Candidate rendering: ntiab tawm hauv pawg ntseeg must be avoided; recommend instead a non-exorcism-adjacent periphrasis such as muab ntiab kom ncaim ntawm pawg ntseeg only with an explicit disambiguating teaching note, or better, a wholly distinct construction such as tsis pub nyob hauv pawg ntseeg (“not allow to remain within the church”) to sidestep the ntiab dab collision entirely. Flagged for mandatory human theologian review before any permanent TM entry is set — this is the single highest-risk lexical item in 3 John.

Verse 11

Greek: Ἀγαπητέ, μὴ μιμοῦ τὸ κακόν, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἀγαθόν. ὁ ἀγαθοποιῶν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν· ὁ κακοποιῶν οὐχ ἑώρακεν τὸν θεόν. Gloss: “Beloved, do not imitate the evil, but the good. The one who does good is of God; the one who does evil has not seen God.”

• μιμέομαι (mimeomai, “to imitate”) — literal: “to mimic, copy, follow the example of” (root of English “mimic/mime”). Contextual theological meaning: the doctrinal center of “Imitating Good rather than Evil” — moral formation by patterned example (Gaius/Demetrius as positive models; Diotrephes as negative), not abstract rule-following. Hmong risk: [NEW TERM — pending TM revision]. Candidate: ua raws li qauv / xyaum ua raws. Low-Medium risk — comprehension-level; the concept of following an elder’s or role-model’s pattern of conduct is culturally familiar in Hmong intergenerational teaching, no collision.
• κακόν / κακοποιέω (kakon / kakopoieō, “evil / do evil”) — Hmong risk: reuses/extends existing Romans baseline concepts of unrighteousness (kev tsis ncaj ncees) and sin_act_and_condition (txhaum) domains but is a distinct lexical item; candidate: kev phem / ua phem. Low risk.
• ἀγαθόν / ἀγαθοποιέω (agathon / agathopoieō, “good / do good”) — Hmong risk: [NEW TERM]. Candidate: kev zoo / ua zoo. Low-Medium risk — caution: ua zoo (“do good”) is the exact phrase the Romans baseline TM permanently forbids as a mistranslation of justification language (justify_reckon_as_righteous entry: “‘ua zoo’ (do good) framing — rejected, reintroduces works-righteousness at 4:5”). Here in 3 John 11 the phrase is doctrinally correct — this is a straightforward ethics-of-imitation exhortation, not a justification statement — but the surface-string overlap with a permanently forbidden justification-context substitution must be flagged so future curriculum writers do not confuse the two contexts. A footnote clarifying “this is imitation/sanctification language, not justification language” is required wherever this verse is taught alongside Romans.
• ὁράω / ἑώρακεν (horaō, perfect ἑώρακεν, “to see, has seen”) — literal: “has seen”; contextual theological meaning: a relational-knowledge idiom — “has not seen God” means “has no true relational/experiential knowledge of God evidenced by godly conduct,” not literal ocular vision (cf. 1 John 3:6, 4:20). Hmong risk: [NEW TERM — pending TM revision]. Medium-High risk. Candidate: tsis tau paub Vajtswv tiag tiag (lit. “has not truly known God”), deliberately avoiding a literal “seeing” verb. Hmong shamanic tradition (txiv neeb) includes literal claims of trance-vision — “seeing” spirits during ritual. A literal rendering of “has not seen God” risks being heard as a claim about failed shamanic-style spirit-sight rather than Paul’s/John’s relational-moral point. Recommend rendering with a knowing-verb (paub) rather than a seeing-verb (pom/tsom), with a teaching note explicitly distinguishing this from visionary/trance claims.

Verse 12

Greek: Δημητρίῳ μεμαρτύρηται ὑπὸ πάντων καὶ ὑπὸ τῆς ἀληθείας αὐτῆς· καὶ ἡμεῖς δὲ μαρτυροῦμεν, καὶ οἴδατε ὅτι ἡ μαρτυρία ἡμῶν ἀληθής ἐστιν. Gloss: “Demetrius has been testified to by all, and by the truth itself; and we also testify, and you know that our testimony is true.”

• μαρτυρέω / μαρτυρία (martyreō / martyria) — verb and noun forms of the already-fixed baseline TM entry witness (martys → tus timkhawv). Here the noun μαρτυρία should render as tej lus timkhawv (built from the fixed noun) rather than a new coinage. Low risk, per baseline; this verse is the doctrinal anchor for “Commendation of Faithful Witness (Demetrius)” — a triple-layered testimony (by all, by the truth itself, and by the apostolic “we”) that must be preserved as cumulative, not flattened into a single generic compliment.
• ἀληθής (alēthēs, “true”) — adjectival form of the fixed alētheia (truth → qhov tseeb); render the compound “our testimony is true” as peb tej lus timkhawv yog qhov tseeb, reusing the fixed noun exactly. Low risk.

Verse 13

Greek: Πολλὰ εἶχον γράφειν σοι, ἀλλ’ οὐ θέλω διὰ μέλανος καὶ καλάμου σοι γράφειν· Gloss: “I had many things to write to you, but I do not want to write to you with ink and pen:”

• μέλαν καὶ κάλαμος (melan kai kalamos, “ink and pen/reed”) — concrete ancient writing-implement pair (reed pen; carbon-based ink). Hmong risk: [NEW TERM]. Candidate: rau xim thiab xyoob sau ntawv or simply a modern-equivalent gloss (xyaj thiab ntawv) with an explanatory footnote noting this is an ancient writing-instrument idiom for “a written letter” as opposed to an in-person visit. Low risk — comprehension gap only (unfamiliar ancient technology), no doctrinal collision.

Verse 14

Greek: ἐλπίζω δὲ εὐθέως σε ἰδεῖν, καὶ στόμα πρὸς στόμα λαλήσομεν. Εἰρήνη σοι. ἀσπάζονταί σε οἱ φίλοι. ἀσπάζου τοὺς φίλους κατ’ ὀνομα. Gloss: “But I hope to see you soon, and we will speak face to face. Peace to you. The friends greet you. Greet the friends by name.”

• ἐλπίζω (elpizō, “I hope”) — verbal form related to a concept that, in the Romans baseline TM, is fixed as hope (elpis → kev cia siab), there defined as confident expectation grounded in God’s promise, not mere wishing. Here the sense is more everyday (“I hope/expect to visit soon”), but the same Hmong term may be reused: kev cia siab / cia siab. Low risk, consistent with baseline usage, though this occurrence is a personal travel-hope rather than the theologically loaded eschatological hope of Romans 4, 5, 8, 15.
• στόμα πρὸς στόμα (stoma pros stoma, “mouth to mouth”) — literal: “mouth to mouth”; a Hebraic idiom (cf. Num 12:8 LXX) for direct, unmediated, face-to-face communication. Hmong risk: [NEW TERM]. Low-Medium risk — a literal rendering (ncauj tim ncauj) risks an unintended kissing/intimacy connotation in Hmong; recommend the standard Hmong face-to-face idiom ntsib tim ntsej muag (lit. “meet face to face”) instead of a literal mouth-to-mouth calque.
• εἰρήνη (eirēnē) — reuses baseline TM entry peace → kev thaj yeeb exactly as recorded. Low risk, per baseline.
• φίλος (philos, “friend”) — literal: “friend, one who is dear”; a relational category distinct from ἀδελφός (kinship/family-of-faith language used throughout vv.3-10). Hmong risk: [NEW TERM — pending TM revision]. Candidate: cov phooj ywg. Medium risk — Hmong social structure is heavily kinship/clan-oriented; “friend” (phooj ywg) denotes a real but structurally lesser bond than kwvtij (clan-kin). Using two different relational terms in close proximity within one small letter (adelphoi in vv.3-10, philoi in v.14) requires a brief note that both refer to the same believing community viewed from two valid angles (covenant-family and affectionate-friendship), not two different social tiers.
• κατ’ ὄνομα (kat’ onoma, “by name”) — literal: “according to name”; individualized, personal greeting. Hmong risk: [NEW TERM]. Candidate: hu lawv lub npe tuaj tuaj (lit. “call/greet each one by their own name”). Low risk — caution only: avoid the hu-family verb collision already flagged for v.7’s “the Name” if paired incautiously; here it is the ordinary, non-cultic verb “to call/address someone by name,” and is not the forbidden ritual soul-calling sense, but a footnote distinguishing the two uses of hu across the letter is good practice.

---

§3. Chapter-by-Chapter Full-Book Coverage Log

3 John consists of a single chapter (14 verses), and the assigned core passage (3 John 1:1-14) is the entire book. There is no additional chapter content beyond what has been analyzed verse-by-verse in §2 above.

Chapter 1 (3 John 1:1-14): Fully analyzed above, verse-by-verse, covering every load-bearing theological and cultural term in the book. Status: REVIEWED IN FULL. No chapter of this book has been silently skipped or summarized without term-level analysis; full-book coverage is satisfied by §2 in its entirety.

No further chapters exist in this book. Full-book coverage mandate: satisfied.