Doctrine Analysis

James — Phase 1 Step 4: Doctrine Analysis (Hmong Language Package)

This document is the complete doctrine matrix for the book of James, spanning all five chapters. It is fully consistent with assets/doctrine_risk_registry.json: the same nine doctrines, identical risk tiers, and identical review routing. Nothing here revises the registry; this file expands it with full-book supporting-passage coverage, translation-risk rationale, and an explicit chapter-by-chapter reviewed log per the PRD full-book-coverage mandate. The core passage (James 2:14-26) is the theological anchor of Doctrine 1 but is never treated as the scope boundary of this analysis — every chapter of James is reviewed below.

Governing relationship to the Romans Baseline v1.0: James’s nine doctrines never override or contradict the ten doctrines already fixed in the Hmong Romans Language Package (assets/doctrine_risk_registry.json inherited from Romans, reproduced in the baseline documents supplied to this pipeline). Where a James doctrine touches a Romans doctrine’s vocabulary (chiefly Doctrine 1 touching Romans’ “Justification by Faith,” and Doctrine 6 touching Romans’ “Grace and Salvation by Faith Alone”), the Romans-fixed rendering and doctrinal boundary govern, and James content must be explicitly harmonized with it rather than presented as a competing or corrective doctrine.

Part A: Doctrine Matrix

#	Doctrine	Supporting Passages (full book)	Risk Level	Translation Risk Description	Review Routing
1	Faith and Works	James 1:22-25; 1:26-27; 2:1 (faith and status); 2:14-17; 2:18-20; 2:21-23; 2:24; 2:25-26	Critical	The inherited forensic pair `raug suav tias ncaj ncees` (reckoned righteous) / `suav / suav tias` (reckon/impute) is permanently fenced in the Romans baseline to preserve righteousness as declared apart from works (Rom 3:28, 4:5). James 2:24 uses the identical Hmong phrase in a construction that, read alone, appears to condition justification on works. Because Hmong `ncaj ncees` already carries a strong cultural default toward earned, achieved moral standing through right clan/village conduct, any James lesson presenting 2:24 without the mandatory harmonizing note — works as the visible fruit/completion of an already-imputed faith (2:22, “faith was completed by works”), never as faith’s forensic ground, per the shared Genesis 15:6 citation at 2:23 and the Romans 4:3 parallel — will be heard as confirming exactly the works-earn-righteousness reading Hmong custom already assumes, inverting sola fide.	Human theologian
2	Trials and the Testing of Faith	James 1:2-4; 1:5-8 (wisdom sought amid trial); 1:9-11 (rich/poor reversal under trial); 1:12; 1:13-15	High	James sharply distinguishes external testing that produces endurance and is compatible with God’s good providence (`peirasmos`/`dokimion`, 1:2-3) from internal enticement to sin, never sourced to God (`peirazō`/`epithymia`, 1:13-15). Hmong traditional religion commonly explains suffering/misfortune as caused by displeased ancestors or spirits, or by violated taboo, within a fate/ritual-remedy causal framework. Without carefully distinct Hmong renderings (`kev raug swm sim` vs. `kev raug ntxias kom ua txhaum`) and explicit teaching that God is not the source of enticement to sin, hearers risk either assimilating trials into a spirit-displeasure/ritual-appeasement framework, or concluding from an undifferentiated translation that God himself entices toward sin.	Human theologian
3	Wisdom from Above	James 1:5; 3:13-17; 3:18	High	The natural Hmong term for wisdom/counsel, `tswvyim`, is regularly associated with decisions reached through consultation with elders, ancestors, or a shaman (`txiv neeb`) using divinatory means. James 1:5 commands asking God directly for wisdom, and 3:15 explicitly names a counterfeit wisdom `daimoniōdēs` (demonic) alongside earthly and merely-human wisdom. Left unanchored, `tswvyim` risks defaulting hearers to their existing spirit-consultation practice; conversely, naming a wisdom category as demon-derived without careful catechesis risks being heard as a direct accusation against living shamanic practitioners rather than a biblical discernment category. Mandatory anchoring of both the positive (`tswvyim ntawm Vajtswv`) and negative (`tswvyim los ntawm dab`) renderings is essential.	Human theologian
4	Favoritism and the Poor	James 1:9-11; 1:27 (orphans/widows); 2:1-4; 2:5-7; 2:8-9; 2:10-13	High	James 2:8 grounds the prohibition of favoritism in the “royal law,” `Txoj Kevcai Loj ntawm Vajtswv`, inheriting the full Critical-tier collision risk already documented for `Txoj Kevcai` in the Romans baseline (shared root morpheme with `kev cai dab qhuas`, ancestral spirit-worship customs); the mandatory `(ntawm Vajtswv)` qualifier must never be dropped. James 2:13’s linkage of impartiality to mercy (`txoj kev khuv leej`) must be kept lexically distinct from grace (`txiaj ntsim`) per the Romans mercy-vs-grace note, since blending the two would blur the specific accountability warning (“judgment without mercy for the one who has shown no mercy”) into an undifferentiated statement about unmerited favor.	Human theologian
5	Taming the Tongue	James 1:19-20; 1:26; 3:1-6; 3:7-8; 3:9-10; 3:11-12	High	James 3:9-10’s picture of the same tongue used to bless God and curse people directly intersects a live Hmong practice of ritually spoken blessing and cursing formulas (`foom koob hmoov`, `foom tsis zoo rau`) widely believed to carry real spiritual efficacy, sometimes invoking ancestors or spirits as agents of the outcome. `koob hmoov` is permanently reserved (per Romans baseline) exclusively for ordinary material blessing and permanently forbidden for grace. This doctrine additionally requires that “blessing God” (`qhuas Vajtswv`) and “cursing a person” (`foom tsis zoo rau`) use verbs clearly distinguished from the ritual-efficacy connotations of `foom koob hmoov`, so James’s ethical point about the tongue’s moral inconsistency is not assimilated into a folk discussion of ritual curse-power or blessing-transfer.	Human theologian
6	Worldliness versus Friendship with God	James 1:27 (unstained by the world); 4:1-3; 4:4; 4:5; 4:6-7; 4:8-10; 4:13-17 (worldly self-sufficiency)	Critical	Three of the curriculum’s highest-risk collision points concentrate in one chapter: (1) James 4:6 quotes the Romans-Critical `charis`/`txiaj ntsim`, which must never be rendered `koob hmoov`, or God’s opposition to the proud and favor to the humble will sound like ritual-earned fortune rather than sovereign unmerited favor, inverting the doctrine exactly as the Romans baseline warns for 3:24/4:4-5/11:6; (2) James 4:7’s command to resist “the devil,” `dab Ntxwg Nyoog`, is built on the generic `dab` (spirit/demon) vocabulary central to Hmong ancestor- and nature-spirit veneration, requiring explicit teaching that this singular, already-defeated arch-enemy is categorically distinct from spirits engaged, feared, or propitiated in traditional practice, and is never to be negotiated with; (3) James 4:5’s textually disputed πνεῦμα referent must not be silently resolved to either `Vaj Ntsuj Plig` (Holy Spirit) or bare `ntsuj plig` (human spirit), since an incorrect resolution in either direction produces a false doctrinal statement inconsistent with the Romans baseline’s strict lexical separation of those two entries.	Human theologian
7	Prayer and Healing	James 5:13; 5:14; 5:15; 5:16 (prayer clause); 5:17-18	Critical	James 5:14’s instruction for elders to anoint the sick with oil while praying directly borders the domain of shamanic healing ritual (`ua neeb kho mob`), which likewise employs a ritual object, prescribed gesture, and appeal to spiritual power for physical restoration; without explicit teaching that the oil is a simple, non-magical accompanying sign and that v.15 attributes the healing to “the prayer of faith” and the Lord, not the oil itself, hearers will likely assimilate this practice as “the Christian equivalent” of the existing ritual-healing technique. Compounding this, `thov` (pray) is also the verb for petitioning ancestors/spirits (`thov dab`, `thov poj koob yawm txwv`) and must always be stated with its object `Vajtswv`. James 5:15 additionally uses σῴζω in a physical-healing sense distinct from the Romans-baseline soteriological `kev cawm dim` (always anchored to Yexus Khetos for eternal salvation), requiring a deliberate translation departure to avoid diluting the soteriological gravity of the inherited term or implying physical healing is guaranteed/equivalent to eternal salvation.	Human theologian
8	Patience and the Lord’s Return	James 5:7-8; 5:9; 5:10-11	Medium	This doctrine’s vocabulary (`parousia` → `hnub uas tus Tswv Yexus rov qab los`; `makrothymia` → `ua siab ntev tos`; the Judge standing at the door) presents primarily a comprehension-level challenge rather than a direct collision with a competing Hmong religious concept, since Hmong tradition has no strong indigenous eschatological-return framework to clash against, and the farmer-awaiting-harvest illustration (5:7) is agrarian-accessible. The chief translation risk is register-level: distinguishing James’s forbearance-while-awaiting-the-Lord (`makrothymia`) from the Romans-baseline endurance-under-trial (`hypomonē`, `kev ua siab ntev`), which shares the same Hmong idiom family, so hearers do not collapse patient hope grounded in Christ’s certain return into mere stoic waiting.	Native speaker
9	Confession and Restoration	James 5:12; 5:16; 5:19-20	High	Two collision points converge: (1) James 5:16’s mutual confession of sins (`lees kev txhaum rau ib leeg`) must be taught as horizontal, restorative confession within the believing community, distinct from confession made to a shamanic ritual intermediary who mediates repair with offended spirits in traditional practice; (2) James 5:12’s prohibition of oath-swearing (`tsis txhob cog lus twv`) intersects with traditional Hmong oath customs that invoke ancestors or spirits as guarantors of a promise, often carrying a curse-consequence for breaking it — James’s actual point (simple, unqualified truthfulness replacing elaborate guarantee-formulas) must be taught precisely so it is neither mistaken for a mere restatement of an existing taboo against invoking spirits, nor loosened so far that it fails to address the specific traditional practice it most directly confronts.	Human theologian

Part B: Full-Book Chapter-by-Chapter Coverage Log

Per the PRD full-book-coverage mandate, every chapter of James is logged explicitly below, whether or not it contributes new doctrinal risk beyond what is already captured in Part A. No chapter is silently skipped.

James 1 — REVIEWED IN FULL

Contributes to Doctrines 2 (Trials, 1:2-4,12-15), 3 (Wisdom, 1:5-8), 4 (Favoritism/poor introduced via rich-poor reversal, 1:9-11, and orphans/widows, 1:27), 5 (Tongue, 1:19-20,26), 9 (via the “word of truth”/implanted word groundwork for later restoration teaching, 1:18,21). Also establishes cross-cutting vocabulary (double-mindedness, crown of life, Father of lights, law of liberty, pure/undefiled religion) documented in 08_core_glossary.md. No doctrine is thin in this chapter; it functions as the letter’s programmatic overture, touching seven of the nine doctrines in preview form.

James 2 — REVIEWED IN FULL (verse-by-verse for the core passage 2:14-26)

Contributes directly to Doctrine 4 (Favoritism, 2:1-13, including the “royal law” and mercy/impartiality vocabulary) and Doctrine 1 (Faith and Works, 2:14-26, the curriculum’s core passage and highest doctrinal-risk unit in the book). This chapter carries the highest term-density and highest doctrinal risk of the five; both its sections (favoritism and faith-works) are Critical/High tier and both require mandatory human theologian review.

James 3 — REVIEWED IN FULL

Contributes to Doctrine 5 (Taming the Tongue, 3:1-12) and Doctrine 3 (Wisdom from Above, 3:13-18, including the demonic-wisdom category and the “fruit of righteousness” harvest metaphor). Jealousy/selfish-ambition vocabulary (3:14-16) is logged in the glossary as supporting Doctrine 3.

James 4 — REVIEWED IN FULL

Contributes to Doctrine 6 (Worldliness versus Friendship with God, 4:1-10), which is the single highest-concentration-risk chapter in the book (three converging Critical-tier collision points: grace/koob hmoov, the devil/dab, and the disputed πνεῦμα referent at 4:5). Also touches Doctrine 4 (favoritism/judging one another, 4:11-12, read alongside ch.2) and previews Doctrine 8 (the transience of human planning against God’s will, 4:13-17, “if the Lord wills,” building the thelēma theou vocabulary later reinforced in ch.5’s patience teaching).

James 5 — REVIEWED IN FULL

The second-highest doctrinal-concentration chapter after ch.2, contributing to Doctrine 8 (Patience and the Lord’s Return, 5:7-11), Doctrine 7 (Prayer and Healing, 5:13-18, including anointing with oil and the physical-healing sense of σῴζω), and Doctrine 9 (Confession and Restoration, 5:12,16,19-20). Proper names requiring TM-revision logging (Job/Yauj, Elijah/Eliyas, and Rahab/Lahaj at 2:25, cross-referenced here) are confirmed in the glossary.

Coverage confirmation: All five chapters of James have been reviewed in full against all nine assigned doctrines. Chapters 2 and 5 carry the highest doctrinal-risk density; no chapter is doctrinally thin, and none is omitted.

Part C: Cross-Reference to Romans Baseline Doctrines

Because this Hmong Language Package inherits the Romans Baseline v1.0 as its governing translation memory, the following intersections must be tracked so that James content never silently contradicts the Romans-fixed doctrinal boundary:

James Doctrine	Intersecting Romans Doctrine	Harmonization Requirement
1. Faith and Works	Justification by Faith (Romans, Critical)	James 2:24 must always be taught alongside Romans 3:28/4:5 as addressing a different question (how genuine faith is evidenced, not how a sinner is forensically declared righteous); never present as a correction or alternative to Romans’ sola fide.
6. Worldliness versus Friendship with God	Grace and Salvation by Faith Alone (Romans, Critical)	James 4:6’s citation of grace must use the identical `txiaj ntsim` rendering and inherit the permanent `koob hmoov` prohibition without exception.
4. Favoritism and the Poor	The Law and Its Purpose (Romans, Critical)	The “royal law”/“law of liberty” constructions must retain the Romans-mandated `(ntawm Vajtswv / Mauxes)` qualifier pattern at every occurrence.
3. Wisdom from Above	Sanctification and Life in the Spirit (Romans, High)	Both books require the “Vaj”-prefix discipline for the Holy Spirit; James 4:5’s disputed referent must never be resolved in a way that would create tension with the Romans-fixed `Vaj Ntsuj Plig` / `ntsuj plig` lexical separation.
7. Prayer and Healing	The Gospel as the Power of God for Salvation (Romans, Critical)	The physical-healing sense of σῴζω at James 5:15 must be deliberately distinguished from the Romans-anchored soteriological `kev cawm dim`, to avoid either diluting eternal salvation’s gravity or implying physical healing is guaranteed.