Ezra — Full-Book Semantic Analysis (Hmong Language Package)

§0. Methodological Note on Source Language

The baseline Romans package was generated against Koine Greek, the original language of Romans. Ezra is an Old Testament book composed in Hebrew, with a substantial Aramaic section (Ezra 4:8–6:18 and 7:12–26, the official correspondence and decrees). This analysis therefore cites the actual original-language forms — Hebrew (marked H) or Aramaic (marked A) — rather than Greek, since citing Greek would misrepresent the source text. Where the Septuagint (LXX, Greek “Esdras B”) renders a term of special interest for cross-book consistency with the Romans package, this is noted separately and marked LXX.

All register, script (RPA), risk-tier definitions, and citation conventions inherited from the baseline 12_ai_translation_requirements.md and bible_term_registry.json apply unchanged. Every term already fixed in assets/translation_memory.json (e.g. Vajtswv, tus Tswv, Txoj Kevcai (ntawm Vajtswv / Mauxes), cov seem, dawb huv, qhev, fij, Vaj Ntsuj Plig, txiaj ntsim, kev cawm dim) is reused exactly and is marked “[TM-REUSE]” below. No Critical/High baseline term receives an alternate gloss in this document.

Risk tiers (Critical/High/Medium/Low) follow the definitions in bible_term_registry.json’s registry_metadata.risk_tier_definitions, extended to the specific collision set relevant to Ezra: ancestor-altar worship (thaj xwm kab), spirit-appeasement sacrifice, shamanic ritual power/possession (txiv neeb, ua neeb), fate/fortune (hmoov), clan-lineage purity customs, and communal (rather than individual, God-ward) models of confession/reparation.

---

PART A — Core Passage: Ezra 1:1-11, Verse-by-Verse

Ezra 1:1

• “the LORD” — H: יהוה (YHWH) — literal: the covenant/personal name of God, traditionally read Adonai. Semantic range: God’s proper covenant name, distinct from generic elohim. English variants: “the LORD,” “Yahweh,” “Jehovah.” Contextual theological meaning: it is YHWH, Israel’s covenant God, not Marduk (whom Cyrus’s own inscriptions credit) or any Persian deity, who is the true mover of this history — the verse’s entire rhetorical point is a sovereignty claim. Hmong: tus Tswv [TM-REUSE]. Risk: Low (stable, but see the compound title in v.2 below, which is High).
• “stirred up the spirit of” — H: הֵעִיר… אֶת־רוּחַ (he’ir… et-ruach) — literal: “he awakened/aroused the ruach (spirit/wind/breath) of.” Semantic range: ruach covers wind, breath, disposition, inner will, and (elsewhere) the Spirit of God; here it denotes Cyrus’s inner will/disposition being moved by God, not an indwelling possession. English variants: “stirred up the spirit,” “moved the heart,” “aroused the mind.” Contextual theological meaning: God’s sovereign, non-coercive but decisive shaping of a pagan king’s will to accomplish His redemptive plan — the doctrinal anchor for “God’s Sovereignty over Pagan Nations and History.” Hmong rendering: Vajtswv txhawb Xailab lub siab (“God stirred/moved Cyrus’s heart/inner will”), deliberately using siab (the seat of will/volition, per the baseline’s will_of_god entry), never ntsuj plig. Risk: Critical — rendering this with ntsuj plig (even unprefixed) would suggest a pagan king was entered/possessed by a spirit, exactly the shamanic-possession pattern (dab nkag) the baseline already forbids for “sin entered the world” (Rom. 5:12); the correct strategy is identical to that precedent — describe God acting on the king’s will, never a spirit entering him.
• “proclamation” — H: קוֹל (qol, lit. “voice”) used idiomatically for a herald’s public proclamation; parallel Aramaic royal-decree vocabulary appears later in the book. Hmong: tsab lus tshaj tawm (a proclamation/announcement). Risk: Low, comprehension-level only.

Ezra 1:2

• “Thus says Cyrus king of Persia” — royal decree formula. Hmong: Xailab, tus vaj ntxwv Pawxias, hais li no. Risk: Low.
• “the LORD God of heaven” — H: יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם (YHWH elohei hashamayim) — literal: “YHWH, God of the heavens.” Semantic range: a title used both by Israelites (post-exilic Scripture uses it repeatedly, e.g. Neh. 1:5, 2:4) and, apparently, echoed by Cyrus’s own scribes/court theology, which readily spoke of a supreme sky-god in terms compatible with Persian religious idiom. Contextual theological meaning: the narrator lets the pagan king use Israel’s own covenant title for God, which functions rhetorically as an (unwitting, partial) acknowledgment of YHWH’s supremacy over history, while the book elsewhere makes clear YHWH acted on Cyrus, not that Cyrus had come to full covenant faith. Hmong rendering: tus Tswv, Vajtswv uas kav saum ntuj ceeb tsheej — built from the fixed Vajtswv [TM-REUSE] plus a descriptive genitive (“who rules over the heavens”), never the bare word Ntuj as a name for God (per baseline’s permanent rejection of Ntuj as a name for God — “impersonal sky/heaven, lacks personal deity sense”). Risk: Critical — this exact phrase is the single highest-risk phrase in the chapter, because a pagan ruler’s mouth is speaking it: an unqualified rendering risks (a) collapsing YHWH into the Hmong high-sky concept Ntuj (impersonal, non-covenantal), and (b) implying Cyrus was a genuine covenant believer, which the text does not claim. Mandatory teaching note required: Cyrus’s confession is real but functional/political, not saving faith; contrast with Ezra’s own covenant relationship to tus Tswv.
• “build him a house” — H: לִבְנוֹת־לוֹ בָיִת (livnot-lo vayit) — literal “to build for him a house.” Semantic range: bayit (“house”) is the standing OT idiom for the Temple (“the house of the LORD”). Hmong: ua ib lub Tuam Tsev rau nws. Risk: Low-Medium; Tuam Tsev is the settled Hmong Christian term for “temple,” structurally distinct from thaj xwm kab (household ancestor-spirit altar shelf) — the distinction must be maintained (see Glossary entry “temple”).

Ezra 1:3

• “Who is there among you of all his people?” — rhetorical decree-invitation formula. Low risk.
• “let him go up” — H: יַעַל (ya’al, root עלה, alah, “go up/ascend”) — literal: “let him go up [to Jerusalem].” Semantic range: this root is the standing OT term for pilgrimage ascent to Jerusalem/the Temple mount, later technical Hebrew aliyah. Contextual theological meaning: return from exile is framed not merely as migration but as covenantal ascent toward God’s dwelling place — the physical “going up” mirrors the spiritual restoration of temple worship. Hmong: nce mus (go up/ascend) with contextual note that this is covenantal pilgrimage language, not bare travel. Risk: Medium — comprehension gap; no natural Hmong lexical equivalent carries the pilgrimage nuance, so a teaching note is required to prevent it from reading as ordinary travel.
• “his God be with him” — Hmong: kom nws tus Vajtswv nrog nws nyob. Risk: Low.

Ezra 1:4

• “freewill offering” — H: נְדָבָה (nedavah) — literal: “voluntary/spontaneous gift.” Semantic range: distinct from mandated tithes/sacrifices; a gift given from the heart’s own initiative, not under compulsion or ritual obligation. English variants: “freewill offering,” “voluntary offering.” Contextual theological meaning: God moves not only kings but ordinary people to give freely toward temple restoration — an early instance of the “restoration of temple worship” doctrine expressed as willing, not coerced, participation. Hmong rendering: khoom pub ntawm lub siab nyiam pub (“a gift given from a willing heart”), kept lexically distinct from the fixed fij [TM-REUSE] sacrificial-offering vocabulary (this is a building-fund gift, not a sacrifice). Risk: Medium — comprehension-level; must be kept clearly distinct from fij, since Hmong hearers could otherwise assimilate it into spirit-appeasement gift-giving customs (offerings placed at a thaj xwm kab to secure ancestral goodwill), which is coercive/transactional rather than voluntary.

Ezra 1:5

• “rose up” — H: וַיָּקוּמוּ (vayaqumu, root קום, qum) — idiom for decisive action/response. Hmong: sawv tsees mus ua (stood up to go and do). Risk: Low.
• “heads of fathers’ houses” — H: רָאשֵׁי הָאָבוֹת (rashei ha’avot) — clan-patriarchal leadership title. Hmong: cov thawj coj ntawm txhua tsev neeg (heads of the clans/households). Risk: Low; strong positive cultural resonance with Hmong clan-elder (kev cai coj tsev neeg) leadership structures — a bridge concept, not a collision.

Ezra 1:6

• “strengthened their hands” — H: חִזְּקוּ בִּידֵיהֶם (chizzequ biyedeihem) — idiom for material/moral support. Hmong: pab txhawb kom muaj zog mus ua (helped/strengthened them to do the work). Risk: Low.

Ezra 1:7

• “vessels of the house of the LORD” — H: כְּלֵי בֵית־יְהוָה (kelei veit-YHWH) — literal: “articles/implements of the house of YHWH.” Semantic range: kelim = vessels, tools, instruments of any kind; here specifically the sacred gold/silver temple implements Nebuchadnezzar had looted (2 Kings 25:14-15). Contextual theological meaning: the physical return of the sacred vessels visually enacts the restoration-of-temple-worship doctrine — worship is not merely permitted but materially reconstituted with its proper sacred objects. Hmong: tej twj siv hauv lub Tuam Tsev ntawm tus Tswv (the implements/vessels of the Temple of the LORD). Risk: Medium — comprehension gap (no native category of “sacred ritual vessel” distinct from ordinary household items in Hmong material culture other than shamanic ritual implements, e.g. a txiv neeb’s ritual tools); a teaching note should clarify these are dedicated worship implements consecrated to God, not ritual power-objects.

Ezra 1:8

• “Sheshbazzar, the prince of Judah” — H: שֵׁשְׁבַּצַּר הַנָּשִׂיא לִיהוּדָה (Sheshbatstsar hanasi liYehudah) — nasi = “prince/leader/chief.” Proper name transliterated ad hoc: Ses-npa-xa; title tus thawj coj ntawm Yudas. Risk: Low (name transliteration logged per §2.4 of the baseline requirements for future TM-revision review).

Ezra 1:9-11

• Inventory list (basins, knives, bowls, censers, etc.) and the summary “all the vessels of gold and of silver were five thousand and four hundred” — administrative/inventory register. Hmong: rendered with concrete count-nouns and classifiers (lub, rab, phaub, etc.) per ordinary Hmong numeral-classifier grammar. Risk: Low.
• “brought up” — H: הֶעֱלָה (he’elah, causative of alah, same root as v.3’s “go up”) — literal “caused to go up.” Hmong: coj nce mus, echoing v.3’s ascent-language. Risk: Low-Medium (same pilgrimage-nuance note as v.3 applies).
• “of them that were carried away” — H: הַגּוֹלָה (hagolah, “the exile-community”). Semantic range: golah is the standing technical term throughout Ezra-Nehemiah for the exiled/returning community as a corporate body, distinct from ordinary “travelers.” Hmong: cov uas raug ntes coj mus poob teb chaws (“those who were captured/taken to a foreign land”) with the returning group called cov rov qab los (“those who returned”). Risk: Medium — comprehension-level; no single Hmong word captures “exile-community-as-covenant-body,” so the phrase must be used consistently every time golah recurs across the book (chs. 2, 8, 9, 10) to preserve its corporate, covenantal (not merely biographical) sense.

---

PART B — Chapter-by-Chapter Study of the Whole Book

Chapter 1 (Core Passage)

Fully treated verse-by-verse in Part A above. Doctrine load: God’s Sovereignty over Pagan Nations and History (primary); Restoration of Temple Worship (secondary, via the vessels and the decree to build).

Chapter 2

• “the assembly” — H: הַקָּהָל (haqahal) — literal “the congregation/assembly.” Semantic range: the corporate worshiping/covenant body of Israel, gathered by census. Contextual theological meaning: the returnees are not a random crowd but qahal, the reconstituted covenant community — foundational to “Rebuilding and Covenant Renewal.” Hmong: pawg ntseeg would wrongly import New Testament church-vocabulary; better rendered cov neeg sib sau ua ib pawg (the assembled congregation/community). Risk: Medium — comprehension/register gap; must not be confused with the NT ekklēsia-derived church term.
• “temple servants” (Nethinim) — H: הַנְּתִינִים (hanetinim, “those given/dedicated [to temple service]”). Semantic range: a hereditary class assigned to menial temple-service duties, distinct from priests and Levites. Hmong: cov raug muab pub ua haujlwm hauv lub Tuam Tsev, deliberately not rendered with the baseline’s qhev [TM-REUSE], since qhev is reserved for the bondservant-to-Christ metaphor (Rom. 1:1, 6) and for literal chattel slavery; the Nethinim are a dedicated ritual-service class, closer to the baseline’s deacon_servant pattern (tus pab tu pawg ntseeg). Risk: Medium — care needed to avoid collapsing this office into either the slavery-connotation qhev term or a shamanic ritual-servant role.
• Genealogical registers; priests excluded for want of proof of descent (2:59-63) — H: כָּתוּב (katuv, “written [record]”); the concern is ritual/covenant legitimacy, not ethnic pride per se. Hmong: cov npe raws caj ceg (genealogical/lineage records). Risk: Low — strong positive cultural bridge, since Hmong clan-genealogy record-keeping (keeb kwm caj ceg) is a deeply resonant, non-colliding practice; note, however, that the purpose here (verifying priestly legitimacy for temple service) must be distinguished in teaching from clan-honor/ancestor-veneration purposes.
• “Urim and Thummim” — H: אוּרִים וְתֻמִּים — untranslatable technical priestly-oracle device names (“lights and perfections”). Retained as a transliterated loanword with footnote: Ulis thiab Tumis. Risk: Medium, comprehension gap only; no traditional-religion collision, but must not be glossed with any txiv neeb divination vocabulary (e.g., casting bones/reading signs), since that would wrongly imply a shamanic divinatory parallel.

Chapter 3

• “altar” / “burnt offerings” — H: מִזְבֵּחַ (mizbeach, altar); עֹלוֹת (olot, whole burnt offerings). Semantic range: the altar is rebuilt before the temple itself, prioritizing sacrificial worship. Contextual theological meaning: worship resumes even amid incomplete rebuilding — the doctrinal core of “Restoration of Temple Worship.” Hmong: lub thaj fij rau tus Tswv (altar for sacrifice/offering to the LORD); khoom fij kub hlawv (whole burnt offerings), reusing the baseline’s flagged fij [TM-REUSE] sacrificial domain. Risk: Critical — an unqualified “thaj” is the exact word for the household/clan ancestor-spirit altar shelf (thaj xwm kab) central to Hmong traditional religion; every occurrence must be qualified rau tus Tswv (“to the LORD”) and taught in explicit contrast to ancestor-altar ritual, following the same disambiguation strategy the baseline requires for fij (cf. Rom. 3:25, 12:1).
• “Feast of Tabernacles” (Sukkot) — H: חַג הַסֻּכּוֹת (chag hasukkot, “Feast of Booths”). Hmong: Kevcai Nyob Tsev Pheeb Suab (Feast of Dwelling in Temporary Shelters), with explanatory note. Risk: Medium, comprehension gap only.
• “the foundation of the temple was laid… some wept… many shouted for joy” — mixed lament/celebration at the sight of a smaller second temple compared to memory of Solomon’s. Hmong: rendered descriptively; theological point (Rebuilding and Covenant Renewal proceeds even when the outward form is diminished from the past) needs a teaching note, not a lexical fix. Risk: Low-Medium.
• “his mercy/lovingkindness endures forever” — H: חַסְדּוֹ לְעוֹלָם (chasdo le’olam) — chesed = covenant-loyal love/steadfast kindness, richer and more relationally binding than the baseline’s Romans-era mercy entry (txoj kev khuv leej, Gk. eleos = compassion toward the miserable). Hmong rendering recommended: nws txoj kev hlub ruaj khov mus ib txhis (“his steadfast, unwavering love forever”), distinguished from txoj kev khuv leej [TM-REUSE]. Risk: Medium — [TRANSLATOR REVIEW NEEDED: chesed vs. eleos] — flagged per §2.4/§9 of the baseline requirements as a genuinely new theological nuance (covenant-loyalty love) with no dedicated TM entry; not to be silently merged with the existing “mercy” entry without a formal TM-revision review, since collapsing chesed into eleos-style mercy would flatten the Old Testament’s covenant-fidelity emphasis.

Chapter 4

• “adversaries” / “people of the land” — H: צָרֵי (tsarei, “adversaries/enemies”) and עַם־הָאָרֶץ (am ha’aretz, “people of the land”). Semantic range: the mixed, partly syncretistic populations (including Samaritans) who oppose rebuilding, later intermarrying with Israel’s returnees (chs. 9-10). Contextual theological meaning: the first concrete instance of the “Separation from Syncretism” doctrine — opposition to God’s work often comes clothed as false religious solidarity (“let us build with you,” 4:2). Hmong: cov tawm tsam (adversaries/opponents); cov neeg nyob hauv thaj av (peoples of the land). Risk: High — must be kept distinct from the baseline’s nations_gentiles entry (lwm Haiv Neeg, Gk. ethnē), which in Romans denotes the legitimate mission-field of the gospel; here “peoples of the land” denotes specifically syncretistic, idol-entangled local populations whose religious mixture is the very danger the text warns against — conflating the two terms would blur a positive missional category with a negative syncretism-warning category.
• Aramaic-language shift (4:8 onward) — the narrative itself switches from Hebrew to Aramaic for official correspondence, signaling the political/administrative (not covenantal) register of these chapters. No new theological term, but flagged as a structural feature relevant to translation register consistency (official decree Aramaic vs. narrative Hebrew) — note for Phase 2 stylistic handling, not a doctrinal risk.
• “bribed counselors… to frustrate their purpose” — sabotage/administrative obstruction. Hmong: muab nyiaj rau cov tuav ntaub ntawv kom lawv tsis pub kev ua tiav. Risk: Low.

Chapter 5

• prophets Haggai and Zechariah (“cev Vajtswv lus”) — reuse the established generic Hmong Christian term for “prophet,” tus cev Vajtswv lus (“one who speaks on God’s behalf”). Risk: Low, stable.
• “the eye of their God was upon the elders of the Jews” — H: עֵין אֱלָהֲהֹם (Aramaic, ein elahahom) — providence idiom. Hmong: lawv tus Vajtswv qhov muag saib ntsoov lawv (“their God’s eye watched over them”). Risk: Medium — a positive providence idiom, but must be distinguished from Hmong folk-belief in ancestral/spirit “watching” that requires ritual appeasement to remain favorable; teaching note: God’s watchful care here is covenantal faithfulness, not a maintained ritual relationship.
• “God of heaven and earth” — Aramaic: אֱלָהּ שְׁמַיָּא וְאַרְעָא (elah shemaya v’ar’a). Same risk profile as the Ch.1 “God of heaven” title; Hmong: Vajtswv uas kav saum ntuj thiab hauv ntiajteb. Risk: Critical — same reasoning as the Ch.1 entry; reinforce the same mandatory disambiguation.

Chapter 6

• “dedication” (of the temple) — H: חֲנֻכַּת (chanukat, “dedication,” root חנך chanak). Hmong: kev muab lub Tuam Tsev pub rau tus Tswv siv (“the giving-over of the Temple for the LORD’s use”). Risk: High — Hmong culture has a strong parallel ritual: house-inauguration/blessing ceremonies performed to appease and install protective household spirits when occupying a new dwelling; without explicit contrast teaching, “temple dedication” risks being assimilated into this spirit-installation framework rather than understood as consecrating the space for God’s covenant worship.
• “purified themselves” (priests and Levites, before Passover) — reuses the baseline’s flagged dawb huv [TM-REUSE] (ritual purity / sanctification vocabulary, already Critical/High in the Romans package). Hmong: ua kom lawv tus kheej dawb huv. Risk: High, inherited directly from the baseline’s existing Critical flag on dawb huv — must be taught as consecration for covenant service, not folk ritual-contamination removal.
• “Passover” — H: הַפֶּסַח (hapesach). Hmong: Kevcai Hla Dhau (established Hmong Christian term, “the Passing-Over Festival”). Risk: Low, already stable in existing Hmong Christian usage.
• “separated themselves from the filthiness/uncleanness of the peoples of the land” — H: הַנִּבְדָּל מִטֻּמְאַת גּוֹיֵ־הָאָרֶץ (hanivdal mitum’at goyei-ha’aretz) — direct textual anchor for “Separation from Syncretism.” Hmong: cais tawm ntawm tej kev qias tsis huv ntawm cov neeg tsis hwm Vajtswv nyob hauv thaj av. Risk: High — must not be rendered in a way that implies ethnic contempt; the separation is from idolatrous religious practice, not from persons as such (teaching-note requirement).

Chapter 7

• “scribe” — H: סֹפֵר (sofer), “scribe, one learned/skilled in the Law.” Semantic range: an official recognized both by the Persian court and by Israel as an authoritative teacher/copyist of Torah. Hmong: tus kws ntawv txawj Txoj Kevcai (“a scholar/scribe skilled in the Law”), explicitly built on the baseline’s mandatory Txoj Kevcai (ntawm Vajtswv / Mauxes) [TM-REUSE] qualifier. Risk: Medium — office-bridging term, similar in kind to the baseline’s apostolos/tus Tub Txib entry: no exact Hmong social role for “authoritative Scripture scholar” outside the forbidden shamanic (txiv neeb) category, which must never be used; requires a teaching note, not a lexical fix.
• “prepared his heart to seek the law of the LORD, and to do it, and to teach” (7:10) — H: הֵכִין לְבָבוֹ לִדְרוֹשׁ אֶת־תּוֹרַת יְהוָה וְלַעֲשׂת וּלְלַמֵּד (hekhin levavo lidrosh… vela’asot… ulelamed) — the doctrinal core verse for “The Role of Scripture in Community Renewal.” Darash (“seek/search out”) denotes active, disciplined study, not passive reception. Hmong: npaj nws lub siab kom nrhiav Txoj Kevcai ntawm tus Tswv, coj raws, thiab qhia rau lwm tus. Risk: Medium — the three-part structure (seek → do → teach) must be preserved intact in any teaching paraphrase, since collapsing it (e.g., to “obey the law”) loses the community-renewal emphasis on disciplined study and transmission that anchors this doctrine.
• “the good hand of his God was upon him” — H: יַד־יְהוָה אֱלָהָיו עָלָיו (yad-YHWH elahav alav) — recurring providence idiom (also 7:28, 8:18, 8:22, 8:31). Hmong: Vajtswv txhais tes zoo nyob saum nws. Risk: High — Hmong shamanic healing/empowerment ritual frequently involves invoking a spirit’s “hand” or touch upon a medium (txiv neeb) to confer power; the “hand of the LORD” idiom must be explicitly taught as providential blessing/enablement, never as spirit-empowerment received through ritual mediation.
• “favor” (chen, before the king) — H: חֵן (chen, “favor/grace” in a court-relational, not salvific, sense). Deliberately not rendered with the baseline’s txiaj ntsim [TM-REUSE], which is permanently reserved for salvific grace (Critical risk term); rendered instead kev tau txais kev hlub/kev pom zoo ntawm vaj ntxwv (“favor received from the king”). Risk: Medium — flagged to prevent conflation with the Critical-tier charis/txiaj ntsim entry; court-favor and salvific grace must remain lexically distinct.

Chapter 8

• “fasting” (proclaimed at the river Ahava) — H: צוֹם (tsom). Semantic range: voluntary abstention from food as an act of humble petition, here specifically for safe journey/protection (8:21-23). Hmong: yoo mov thov Vajtswv pab tsom kwm (“fasting to ask God for protection”). Risk: High — Hmong shamanic practice includes ritual fasting/abstention undertaken by a txiv neeb to accumulate or access spiritual power before a ritual; the biblical fast must be explicitly taught as humble petition to the sovereign God, not as an ascetic technique for generating spiritual power.
• “consecrated” (the priests and the vessels) — reuses dawb huv [TM-REUSE] vocabulary; same Critical/High risk profile as Ch. 6.
• Recurrence of “the hand of our God” (8:18, 22, 31) and golah/“those returning” vocabulary from Ch. 1 — no new terms; reuses Ch.1 and Ch.7 entries. Explicitly logged as reviewed.

Chapter 9

• “trespass” / “guilt” — H: מַעַל (ma’al, “unfaithfulness, sacrilegious betrayal of covenant trust”) and אַשְׁמָה (ashmah, “guilt/culpability”). Semantic range: ma’al is stronger and more specific than ordinary chatta’ah (“sin,” cf. the baseline’s sin_act_and_condition, txhaum) — it denotes covenant treachery, misappropriation of what is sacred. Contextual theological meaning: Ezra’s prayer frames intermarriage with idolatrous peoples not as a minor lapse but as covenant betrayal, the doctrinal core of “Confession and Corporate Repentance.” Hmong: kev tsis ncaj rau tus Tswv thiab txhaum tsis tuav rawv Txoj Kevcai (unfaithfulness toward the LORD and failure to keep the Law/covenant), kept as an intensified variant of, but distinct from, the baseline’s txhaum [TM-REUSE]. Risk: High — Hmong customary wrongdoing-repair (breach of taboo, restitution to elders/spirits) provides no ready category for “covenant treachery against God”; requires explicit teaching contrasting reparable social fault with covenant-breaking sacrilege (parallel logic to the baseline’s Critical entry on sin_act_and_condition).
• “holy seed” — H: זֶרַע הַקֹּדֶשׁ (zera haqodesh) — literal “seed/offspring of holiness.” Semantic range: Israel’s covenant-consecrated lineage, set apart for God’s purposes (echoing Deut. 7:3-6), not an ethnic-purity claim in the modern racial sense. Hmong: noob dawb huv ntawm Vajtswv (“the holy/consecrated lineage of God”), reusing dawb huv [TM-REUSE]. Risk: Critical — double collision risk: (1) dawb huv already carries the baseline’s ritual-purity collision; (2) Hmong culture has strong clan-lineage-purity and exogamy customs (marriage rules governing which clans may/must not intermarry), and “holy seed” could easily be misheard as endorsing Hmong-style clan-purity nationalism rather than covenantal set-apartness to God. Mandatory teaching note: this is about covenant loyalty and worship purity, never ethnic superiority.
• “abomination” — H: תּוֹעֵבָה (to’evah) — a strong term for religiously detestable practice, frequently associated in the Pentateuch with idolatrous cultic acts. Hmong: tej kev qias vuab tsuab uas Vajtswv ntxub (“detestable practices that God hates”), paralleling the register of the baseline’s idol entry (dab mlom, High risk). Risk: High.

Chapter 10

• “congregation/assembly” — reuses Ch.2’s qahal entry; here the whole community gathers in corporate weeping and confession. Risk: Medium (as Ch.2).
• “confession” — H: הִתְוַדּוּ (hitvadu, root ידה, yadah, reflexive “to confess/acknowledge [sin] openly”). Semantic range: public, corporate, verbal acknowledgment of covenant failure before God, as an act of the whole community, not private individual guilt-management. Hmong: lees paub tej kev txhaum rau tus Tswv (“openly acknowledge/confess sin before the LORD”). Risk: High — Hmong customary practice for wrongdoing (especially communal wrongdoing) typically proceeds through negotiated reparation among elders/clans or ritual appeasement of aggrieved spirits/ancestors, rather than corporate verbal confession directed to God as the wronged covenant party; this doctrine (Confession and Corporate Repentance) requires explicit contrast teaching to prevent hearers from assimilating Ezra 10 into a clan-reparation framework.
• “covenant” — H: בְּרִית (berit) — a solemn, binding, mutual pact, here specifically the people’s renewed pledge (10:3) to put away foreign wives in obedience to the Law. Deliberately distinguished from the baseline’s promise entry (lus cog tseg, Gk. epangelia — God’s own unilateral covenant pledge, e.g. Rom. 4, 9, 15); here the emphasis is the human covenantal response of re-committing to obedience. Hmong recommended: kev cog lus (ua kev sib raug zoo nrog Vajtswv) (“covenant-making, [restoring] a bound relationship with God”), kept lexically related to but distinguishable from lus cog tseg. Risk: High — [TRANSLATOR REVIEW NEEDED: berit vs. epangelia] — flagged per §9 of the baseline requirements: berit (mutual covenant/oath) and epangelia (unilateral divine promise) are related but not identical concepts; a formal TM-revision review should establish whether a single fixed Hmong “covenant” entry is warranted for this and future OT curricula before this becomes permanent.
• “guilt offering” (a ram from the flock, 10:19) — reuses the flagged fij [TM-REUSE] domain; here specifically an asham (“guilt/reparation offering”). Hmong: khoom fij theej kev txhaum (a guilt/reparation offering), explicitly distinguished per the baseline’s existing rule that fij must always be marked as either Christ’s atonement, ethical devotion, or (here) an OT ritual-legal category — never left ambiguous with shamanic appeasement. Risk: Critical, inherited directly from the baseline’s existing Critical flag on the fij/hilastērion domain.
• The public list of those who had intermarried, and their renewed commitment — no new theological term beyond those already treated in Ch. 9-10; explicitly logged as reviewed (reuses “peoples of the land,” “holy seed,” “trespass,” “covenant” vocabulary above).

---

§C. Full-Book Coverage Confirmation

Chapter	New load-bearing terms introduced	Status
1	YHWH/tus Tswv, “God of heaven” title, stirred spirit/siab, house/Tuam Tsev, aliyah/ascent, freewill offering, vessels/kelim, golah	Core passage — fully treated
2	qahal/assembly, Nethinim/temple servants, genealogical registers, Urim/Thummim	Fully treated
3	mizbeach/altar, olah/burnt offering, Sukkot, chesed/steadfast love	Fully treated
4	adversaries, am ha’aretz/peoples of the land, Aramaic register shift	Fully treated
5	prophets, “eye of God,” “God of heaven and earth” title	Fully treated
6	chanukat/dedication, dawb huv/purification (reused, escalated), Passover, separation-from-uncleanness	Fully treated
7	sofer/scribe, darash/seek-do-teach, yad YHWH/hand of the LORD, chen/court-favor	Fully treated
8	tsom/fasting, dawb huv/consecration (reused)	Fully treated; hand-of-God and golah vocabulary reused from chs. 1, 7 — logged as reviewed
9	ma’al/trespass, ashmah/guilt, zera qadosh/holy seed, to’evah/abomination	Fully treated
10	hitvadu/confession, berit/covenant, asham/guilt offering (reused fij domain)	Fully treated; qahal, “holy seed,” “peoples of the land” vocabulary reused from chs. 2, 4, 9 — logged as reviewed

No chapter of Ezra is silently skipped; every chapter’s contribution (whether new vocabulary or reuse of already-analyzed terms) is explicitly logged above, per the full-book-coverage mandate.