Joshua — Phase 1 Semantic Analysis (Hmong Language Package)

0. Methodological Note on Source Language

The task template inherited from the Romans baseline instructs analysis “in the original Koine Greek.” Joshua is a Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) book, not a Greek New Testament book. To preserve theological and linguistic accuracy, this analysis treats the Masoretic Hebrew text as the source-language authority for every load-bearing term, citing Hebrew script, transliteration, and (where the term also appears in the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament translation used by many NT authors) the LXX Greek gloss as a secondary cross-reference only. This correction does not contradict any baseline document; it corrects an inherited template assumption that does not fit this curriculum’s actual source text, per the instruction that governing documents take precedence and errors are to be corrected forward.

All Hmong renderings below reuse exactly any term already fixed in assets/translation_memory.json (the Romans Language Package baseline). New terms surfaced by Joshua are marked NEW and flagged for a future TM-revision review per the escalation rules in 12_ai_translation_requirements.md §9.

---

1. Core Passage — Joshua 24:14-15 (Verse-by-Verse)

Context: The climax of Joshua’s covenant-renewal address at Shechem, following the historical recitation of God’s saving acts (24:2-13). This is the theological anchor for the doctrine “Covenant Renewal at Shechem” and touches directly on “Obedience and the Conquest,” “God’s Faithfulness to the Land Promise,” and (via the fathers’ idolatry “beyond the flood and in Egypt”) indirectly on “Rahab and the Inclusion of the Nations by Faith” as a contrasting case of Gentile idolatry versus Gentile faith.

Joshua 24:14

Hebrew (consonantal sense-units): וְעַתָּה יְראוּ אֶת־יְהוָה וְעִבְדוּ אֺתוֹ בְּתָמִים וּבֶאֱמֶת וְהָסִירוּ אֶת־הָאֱלֺהִים אֲשֶׁר עָבְדוּ אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם בְּעֵבֶר הַנָּהָר וּבְמִצְרַיִם וְעִבְדוּ אֶת־יְהוָה

Hebrew Term	Transliteration	Literal Meaning	Semantic Range	English Variants (KJV/ESV/NIV)	Contextual Theological Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
וְעַתָּה	wə’attah	”and now”	temporal/logical connector marking a decisive turning point	”now therefore” / “now therefore” / “now”	Marks the pivot from historical recital (grace already given) to covenantal demand (response required) — grace precedes obligation.	”yog li ntawd” / “vim li ntawd” — Low risk, standard connective.
יְראוּ	yir’u (root: ירא, yare’)	“fear!” (imperative, plural)	reverential awe, terror, moral respect, worshipful submission	”fear” / “fear” / “fear”	Reverent, worshipful awe before the covenant LORD — NOT dread of a capricious, appeasable spirit.	NEW TERM — High risk. Proposed: “ntshai thiab hwm Vajtswv.” Must be explicitly distinguished from “ntshai dab” (fear of ancestral/nature spirits, which in Hmong tradition motivates ritual appeasement). Requires a teaching note: this fear is reverent submission to a covenant-keeping God, not anxious placation of an unpredictable spirit.
אֶת־יְהוָה	’et-YHWH	direct object marker + the covenant name of God	the personal, self-revealing covenant name of Israel’s God	”the LORD” / “the LORD” / “the LORD”	YHWH, the covenant God who acted in the Exodus/conquest narrative just recited (24:2-13).	REUSED FROM ROMANS TM — “tus Tswv” (kyrios/Lord baseline entry). The divine-name convention from 12_ai_translation_requirements.md §3.1 (never substitute a transliterated divine name such as “Yehauvas” for kyrios) extends here: render as “tus Tswv,” never a phonetic Hebrew transliteration, preserving continuity with the NT’s identification of Jesus as this same Lord.
וְעִבְדוּ	wə’ivdu (root: עבד, avad)	“and serve!” (imperative)	to serve, work for, be a slave/servant of, worship (cultic sense)	“serve” / “serve” / “serve”	Total, exclusive covenant service — the same verb used of slavery/vassalage and of worship.	REUSED FROM ROMANS TM — maps to the worship_serve_cultic entry (latreuō): “pehawm / pab teev,” always with explicit object “pehawm Vajtswv.” Inherits the High-risk collision already documented: pehawm is the identical verb used for pehawm dab (venerating ancestral/household spirits). The qualifier is mandatory at every occurrence in Joshua 24, which is precisely the passage contrasting exclusive service to YHWH against service to other gods.
אֺתוֹ	’oto	”him” (object pronoun)	—	“him”	Referring back to YHWH, reinforcing single-object exclusivity.	Low risk, grammatical pronoun; rendered via Hmong verb-object structure, no separate lexeme needed.
בְּתָמִים	be-tamim (root: תמם, tamam)	“in completeness/wholeness”	integrity, blamelessness, sincerity, moral wholeness	”in sincerity” / “in sincerity” / “with all faithfulness”	Undivided, whole-hearted devotion — service with no residual loyalty to other gods.	NEW TERM — Medium risk. Proposed: “kev dawb siab” (whole/sincere-heartedness) or “tag nrho lub siab” (with the whole heart/liver). Comprehension-level nuance; should be taught alongside the Obedience doctrine to reinforce that partial or divided allegiance (a live temptation given the fathers’ history in v.14b) fails to meet the covenant’s demand.
וּבֶאֱמֶת	u-ve’emet (root: אמן, aman)	“and in truth/faithfulness”	reliability, faithfulness, truthfulness	”and in truth” / “and in faithfulness” / “and truth”	Faithful, truthful, covenant-consistent service — paired with tamim to form a totalizing phrase.	REUSED FROM ROMANS TM where possible — “qhov tseeb” (alētheia/truth baseline entry) provides the noun; here adapted adverbially as “raws li qhov tseeb” or combined into the fixed pairing “kev dawb siab thiab qhov tseeb.” Low-Medium risk; no collision, comprehension-level pairing only.
וְהָסִירוּ	wə-hasiru (root: סור, sur)	“and put away! / turn aside!” (imperative, causative)	to remove, take away, cause to depart	”put away” / “put away” / “throw away”	A decisive, active removal — not gradual fading but deliberate rejection of rival gods.	NEW TERM — Critical risk. Proposed: “muab povtseg” (throw away/discard) or “tshem tawm” (remove). Must be taught with strong active-rejection force, since Hmong ancestral-spirit veneration (pehawm dab, xwm kab household spirit-shelf) is typically maintained through inherited family obligation rather than actively rejected; a convert’s “putting away” of ancestral spirit-service is one of the most socially costly and theologically central acts this book calls for, paralleling and reinforcing 24:15’s climax.
אֶת־הָאֱלֺהִים	’et-ha’elohim	”the gods” (with definite article)	(a) the one true God; (b) plural: gods, divine beings, idols/objects of worship	”the gods” / “the gods” / “the gods”	Here specifically the plural, generic sense: the false gods the patriarchs’ ancestors served before and during the sojourn in Egypt/Mesopotamia.	CRITICAL COLLISION TERM — new for Joshua, related to but distinct from the Romans TM idol entry (dab mlom). Proposed: “lwm tus dab” or “lwm tus vajtswv” (other spirits/gods). Unlike Romans’ eidōlon (a carved image), Joshua’s elohim here denotes living, served spiritual beings — this maps with unusual directness onto the Hmong category of dab (ancestral, household, and nature spirits served for protection and blessing). This is not a lexical accident to be smoothed over: the passage’s entire rhetorical force depends on hearers recognizing their own ancestral spirit-service in “the gods your fathers served,” which is precisely Joshua’s evangelistic point. Requires mandatory theologian-reviewed teaching note framing this as a direct historical-and-cultural parallel, not merely an ancient Near Eastern curiosity.
אֲשֶׁר עָבְדוּ	’asher avdu	”which they served”	(same root as above, avad)	“which… served”	Historical, inherited practice — the fathers’ service, now to be renounced by the present generation.	Uses the same pehawm verb family as above; reinforces that inherited ancestral religious practice is precisely what is being renounced — a direct address to Hmong converts’ own family history.
אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם	’avoteikhem	”your fathers”	ancestors, forefathers (plural)	“your fathers”	Not distant strangers but direct lineal ancestors — intensifying the personal cost of the command.	NEW TERM — High risk (positive/negative bridge). Proposed: “koj tej yawg koob / niam txiv thaum ub” (your ancestors/forefathers). Ancestor-reverence is a foundational value in Hmong culture; this term must be handled carefully so the text is heard as calling for rejection of ancestral spirit-service, not disrespect toward ancestors as persons or family lineage generally — a distinction essential to responsible cross-cultural preaching of this verse.
בְּעֵבֶר הַנָּהָר	be-‘ever hannahar	”on the other side of the River”	trans-Euphrates region (Mesopotamia); idiom for “beyond the [Euphrates] River"	"on the other side of the flood” (KJV) / “beyond the Euphrates” (ESV/NIV)	Geographic reference to Abraham’s ancestral homeland (Ur/Haran), where the family served other gods before the call of Abraham.	NEW TERM. Proposed: “tim ub ntawm tus Dej Yufeti” (across/beyond the Euphrates River). Low-Medium risk; purely geographic/comprehension gap, no religious collision. Log ad hoc for TM revision.
וּבְמִצְרַיִם	u-ve-Mitsrayim	”and in Egypt”	the nation/land of Egypt	”and in Egypt”	Reinforces that idol-service was practiced continuously, both in the ancestral homeland and during the sojourn/bondage in Egypt.	NEW TERM. Proposed: “thiab hauv tebchaws Iyi” (established Hmong Bible-tradition geographic transliteration for Egypt). Low risk.
וְעִבְדוּ אֶת־יְהוָה	(repeated)	“and serve the LORD”	—	“and serve the LORD”	The imperative is repeated to bookend the verse, framing “putting away other gods” as inseparable from “serving YHWH” — there is no neutral, godless third option offered.	Same as above; repetition itself should be preserved in translation for rhetorical parallelism.

Joshua 24:15

Hebrew (consonantal sense-units): וְאִם רַע בְּעֵינֵיכֶם לַעֲבֺד אֶת־יְהוָה בַּחֲרוּ לָכֶם הַיּוֹם אֶת־מִי תַעֲבֺדוּן אִם אֶת־אֱלֺהִים אֲשֶׁר־עָבְדוּ אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר בְּעֵבֶר הַנָּהָר וְאִם אֶת־אֱלֺהֵי הָאֱמֺרִי אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם יֺשְׁבִים בְּאַרְצָם וְאָנֺכִי וּבֵיתִי נַעֲבֺד אֶת־יְהוָה

Hebrew Term	Transliteration	Literal Meaning	Semantic Range	English Variants	Contextual Theological Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
וְאִם רַע בְּעֵינֵיכֶם	wə-‘im ra’ be-‘eineikhem	”and if evil in your eyes”	displeasing, unacceptable, morally/aesthetically “bad” in one’s judgment	”if it seem evil unto you” / “if you are unwilling” / “if serving the LORD seems undesirable”	A rhetorical concession that opens real, consequential human choice — Joshua does not coerce, he confronts.	NEW TERM. Proposed: “yog tias koj tsis xav” or “yog tias nws tsis zoo rau koj lub siab” (if it is not good/pleasing in your heart/liver). Medium risk; the idiom “rau lub siab” (in the liver/heart) is the standard Hmong seat of judgment/will, an excellent existing idiomatic bridge already used for will_of_god in the Romans TM (“Vajtswv lub siab nyiam”) — here inverted to describe human displeasure at God’s claim, which should be taught with care so it is not read as license but as the rhetorical setup for the ensuing choice.
בַּחֲרוּ לָכֶם	bakh’ru lakhem	”choose for yourselves!” (imperative)	to select, decide, prefer	”choose you” / “choose for yourselves” / “choose for yourselves”	The decisive human act of covenant allegiance — a real, morally consequential choice, not a mere formality.	NEW TERM — High risk of terminological collision with the Romans TM election_choose entry. The Romans TM fixes “kev xaiv” as a Critical-risk term always co-occurring with the volitional clause “Vajtswv xaiv raws li nws lub siab nyiam” — describing God’s sovereign choice of people (Rom 9, 11). Joshua 24:15 is the reverse direction: the people’s choice of whom to serve. Using the bare verb “xaiv” here risks activating the fixed Romans collocation in hearers’ minds and implying this is a statement about divine election rather than human covenantal decision. Proposed disambiguated rendering: “xaiv seb koj yuav pehawm leej twg” (choose whom you will serve), deliberately built around the serve verb rather than a bare “kev xaiv” noun phrase, and never abbreviated to match the Romans election formula. Flag for mandatory theologian review: this is a case where two true, complementary biblical truths (divine election and human responsibility to choose) must be held together without the language of one collapsing into or being mistaken for the other — directly analogous to the tension already flagged in Romans doctrine 6 (Election and the Sovereignty of God), §4 of 12_ai_translation_requirements.md.
הַיּוֹם	ha-yom	”today / this day”	the present moment, decisive time	”this day” / “today” / “now”	Emphatic decision-moment marker — repeated throughout ch. 24 (vv. 2, 14, 15, 25, 27) to press urgency.	NEW TERM. Proposed: “hnub no” (this day/today). Low risk; should be preserved consistently at every occurrence in ch. 24 to retain the rhetorical drumbeat of decisive urgency.
אֶת־מִי תַעֲבֺדוּן	’et-mi ta’avdun	”whom you will serve”	—	“whom ye will serve”	Restates the object of the choice: not whether to serve someone, but whom.	Uses the same pehawm verb family; the grammar itself denies the possibility of religious neutrality.
אֱלֺהֵי הָאֱמֺרִי	elohei ha-‘Emori	”the gods of the Amorites”	the deities of the Amorite peoples then inhabiting Canaan	”the gods of the Amorites”	The immediate, present-tense temptation — not merely the ancestors’ ancient idols but the surrounding Canaanite peoples’ gods, in whose land Israel now dwells.	Same collision profile as “the gods” above (Critical). “הָאֱמֺרִי” (ha-‘Emori, “the Amorites”) is a proper noun requiring ad hoc transliteration: proposed “cov Amaus” following existing Hmong Bible convention for other transliterated peoples (e.g., “cov Yudas,” “cov Kilis” already fixed in the Romans TM). Log for TM-revision review.
אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם יֺשְׁבִים בְּאַרְצָם	’asher ‘attem yoshvim be-‘artsam	”in whose land you dwell”	to dwell, sit, inhabit	”in whose land ye dwell”	Sharpens the temptation: Israel now lives on land formerly shaped by Amorite religious practice — syncretism is a live, local danger, not a foreign abstraction.	Low-Medium risk; straightforward locative clause, no distinct collision term needed beyond “land” (see promised_land entry below, ch. 1 discussion).
וְאָנֺכִי וּבֵיתִי	wə-‘anokhi u-veiti	”but as for me and my house”	emphatic first-person pronoun + household/family unit	”but as for me and my house”	Joshua’s personal, household-level covenant declaration — the head of household’s decision sets covenantal direction for the family unit, a structure with strong resonance in Hmong clan/household religious practice.	NEW TERM — Medium-High risk (positive bridge with a caution). Proposed: “kuv thiab kuv tsev neeg” (I and my household). Hmong household religious authority is typically vested in the head of household/clan elder, making this a strong positive rhetorical bridge (a respected clan leader’s public religious declaration binds the household) — but must be taught alongside the individual accountability implicit throughout Joshua 24 (the whole assembly answers for itself in vv. 16-24) so household-head authority is not misheard as removing each individual’s own responsibility to choose.
נַעֲבֺד אֶת־יְהוָה	na’avod ‘et-YHWH	”we will serve the LORD”	—	“we will serve the LORD”	The climactic resolution — Joshua’s household models the very choice just demanded of Israel, closing the rhetorical unit begun in v.14.	Same pehawm Vajtswv construction as above; the repetition across vv. 14-15 (four total occurrences of the serve-verb) should be preserved as a structural feature in any lesson or liturgical use of this passage.

---

2. Chapter-by-Chapter Study of the Whole Book of Joshua

(Full-book coverage per PRD Phase 1 mandate. Every chapter is addressed; chapters introducing no new load-bearing theological vocabulary explicitly state so and cite which earlier chapter’s terms they reuse.)

Chapter 1 — Commissioning of Joshua; the Courage and Presence doctrine established

Term	Original	Translit.	Literal/Semantic Range	Contextual Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
Promised Land	אֶרֶץ (erets) + לָתֵת (latet, “to give”)	erets / natan	land, territory, earth; “to give” — grant, hand over	The land YHWH is giving Israel, fulfilling the patriarchal promise (Gen 12, 15). Central to “God’s Faithfulness to the Land Promise.”	NEW — High risk. Proposed: “thaj av uas Vajtswv cog lus tseg” (the land God promised), built on the REUSED Romans TM promise entry (“lus cog tseg”). Positive bridge via strong Hmong reverence for ancestral/clan land, but risk of syncretistic drift where “the Promised Land” collapses into ancestral-land veneration rather than being taught as a specific, historical, redemptive-covenantal gift from the true God.
Be strong and of good courage	חֲזַק וֶאֱמָץ (chazaq we’ematz)	chazaq / amats	to be strong, firm, courageous; to be bold, alert	The repeated charge (1:6,7,9,18) grounding courage explicitly in God’s presence and the Law, not in innate bravery. Anchors “Courage through God’s Presence.”	NEW — Medium-High risk. Proposed: “khov kho thiab tawv siab.” Positive bridge to Hmong warrior-courage cultural values, but must always be anchored to the accompanying clause “for the LORD your God is with you” (see next entry) to avoid the courage being heard as self-generated bravado or (worse) shamanically-empowered boldness.
The LORD is with you	יְהוָה עִמָּךְ (YHWH ‘immakh)	‘im	with, alongside, in presence of	The ground of courage and obedience throughout the conquest narrative.	NEW — Medium risk. Proposed: “Vajtswv nrog nraim koj.” Must always co-occur with the courage term above per the doctrine’s requirement that courage flow from divine presence, not precede or replace it.
Book of the Law (of Moses)	סֵפֶר הַתּוֹרָה (sefer hattorah)	torah	instruction, teaching, law; “book/scroll”	Joshua 1:7-8 grounds success and courage in meditating on and doing “all the law which Moses my servant commanded.”	REUSED FROM ROMANS TM — “Txoj Kevcai (ntawm Vajtswv / Mauxes),” mandatory qualifier retained exactly. New compound for the physical scroll: “Phau Ntawv Kevcai” (Book of the Law) — Low-Medium risk addition, comprehension-level only.
Meditate	הָגָה (hagah)	hagah	to murmur, mutter, meditate (audibly, in ANE practice)	Continual, verbalized reflection on the Law as the source of prosperity/success (1:8).	NEW — Low risk. Proposed: “xav txog tsis tu ncua” (think on without ceasing). Comprehension-level only.
Cross over (the Jordan)	עָבַר (avar)	avar	to pass over, cross, transgress	Physical crossing of the Jordan into the land — also sets up the wordplay with “Hebrews” (ivrim, “those who crossed over”) elsewhere in the OT.	NEW — Low risk. Proposed: “hla” (cross over). Straightforward.

Chapter 2 — Rahab; Faith and the Inclusion of the Nations

Term	Original	Translit.	Literal/Semantic Range	Contextual Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
Rahab	רָחָב	Rachav	proper name, possibly “wide/broad”	A Canaanite prostitute who hides Israel’s spies and confesses YHWH as sovereign; later listed in Matthew 1 and Hebrews 11 as an ancestor/exemplar of faith. Anchors “Rahab and the Inclusion of the Nations by Faith.”	NEW — proper noun, ad hoc transliteration. Proposed: “Lahaj” (following Hmong phonological convention rendering foreign /r/ with /l/, consistent with existing transliteration practice). Log for TM-revision review as a book-level proper name.
The LORD your God is God in heaven and on earth	אֱלֺהִים בַּשָּׁמַיִם וּבָאָרֶץ	—	universal divine sovereignty formula	Rahab’s confession (2:11) — a Gentile’s theologically precise monotheistic declaration, functioning as the narrative’s clearest statement of faith prior to the conquest itself.	NEW — High risk (positive doctrinal anchor). Proposed: “Vajtswv uas nyob saum ntuj thiab hauv av.” Must be taught explicitly as evidence that saving faith is available to Gentile “outsiders” apart from ethnic Israelite identity — directly supporting the Rahab doctrine and paralleling Romans’ Jew/Gentile inclusion argument (cf. Romans TM nations_gentiles = “lwm Haiv Neeg,” reused here for “the peoples” language surrounding Rahab’s account).
Kindness / covenant loyalty	חֶסֶד (chesed)	chesed	steadfast love, loyal kindness, covenant faithfulness	Rahab asks the spies to “deal kindly” (chesed) with her family (2:12,14) in exchange for her own kindness to them — a mutual, oath-bound loyalty.	NEW — Medium risk. Proposed: “kev hlub ruaj khov” (steadfast, loyal love), kept lexically distinct from the REUSED Romans TM mercy entry (“txoj kev khuv leej,” compassion toward the miserable) and from grace (“txiaj ntsim,” unmerited favor toward the guilty). Chesed is closer to covenant-loyalty-kindness than either; the three should be taught as related but distinct, following the precedent the Romans TM already set in keeping mercy and grace distinct.
Oath / sworn pledge	שָׁבַע (shava’)	shava’	to swear, take an oath	The spies swear an oath to protect Rahab’s household (2:12,17,20), later fulfilled in 6:22-25.	NEW — Medium risk (positive bridge). Proposed: “lus twv cog tseg” (sworn pledge), distinguished from the REUSED promise entry (“lus cog tseg,” a unilateral divine pledge) by the added “twv” (swear) marking mutual, binding human oath-taking. Oath-keeping is a strong existing Hmong cultural value (clan/marriage oaths); this is a positive bridge requiring only careful distinction from divine promise.
Scarlet cord / sign	תִּקְוַת חוּט הַשָּׁנִי (tiqvat chut hashani)	—	“cord of scarlet thread” — also a wordplay on tiqvah, “hope”	The visible token of the sworn covenant, displayed as the sign of deliverance (2:18,21; fulfilled 6:22-25).	NEW — Low risk. Proposed: “txoj hlua liab” (red/scarlet cord). Concrete image, no collision; may be taught typologically (a sign of deliverance) without asserting an unwarranted direct equivalence to any specific NT sign.
Terror / melting hearts	אֵימָה (eimah) / נָמֺג (namog)	eimah / namog	dread, terror; to melt, dissolve (courage)	The Canaanites’ terror at Israel’s God (2:9,11; cf. 5:1) — the narrative mirror of Israel’s own commanded courage in ch.1.	NEW — Low-Medium risk. Proposed: “kev ntshai” (fear/dread) — plain existing vocabulary; no distinct collision term needed beyond noting the contrast with the “fear the LORD” entry (reverent) versus this “fear of the LORD’s power” (terrified dread) in the nations.

Chapter 3 — Crossing the Jordan; the Living God and the Ark

Term	Original	Translit.	Literal/Semantic Range	Contextual Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
Ark of the Covenant	אֲרוֹן הַבְּרִית (aron habberith)	aron / berith	”chest/box” + “covenant”	The sacred chest containing the covenant tablets, carried before Israel as the visible sign of God’s presence leading the crossing.	NEW — High risk. Proposed: “Lub Phijxab ntawm Kev Cog Lus.” Collides with Hmong household spirit-shelf objects (xwm kab) and ancestral ritual objects; must be taught explicitly as a symbol of the living God’s covenant presence and instructive guidance, never as an animistic totem with independent power, and distinguished from any object venerated for its own sake.
Sanctify yourselves	קִדַּשׁ (qiddash, from קדשׁ qadash)	qadash	to set apart, consecrate, make holy	Joshua’s command to the people before the crossing (3:5) and before Jericho (7:13).	REUSED FROM ROMANS TM — draws on the sanctification entry’s root (“kev raug ua kom dawb huv”), rendered here as the imperative “ua kom dawb huv.” Inherits the documented High-risk collision with folk ritual-purity practice (removal of spirit-contamination); must be taught as consecrated readiness for divine action, not repeatable ritual cleansing.
Living God	אֱלֺהִים חַי (elohim chai)	chai	living, alive	Joshua 3:10 — God who acts in history, contrasted implicitly with lifeless idols.	NEW — Medium risk. Proposed: “Vajtswv uas muaj txoj sia” (the God who has/is life), built on the REUSED Romans TM eternal_life root (“txoj sia nyob mus ib txhis”). Positive contrast term against “dab mlom” (idol — REUSED from Romans TM), reinforcing that Israel’s God genuinely acts, unlike a carved image or a spirit invoked through ritual.

Chapter 4 — Memorial Stones

Term	Original	Translit.	Literal/Semantic Range	Contextual Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
Memorial stones	אֲבָנִים (avanim) + זִכָּרוֹן (zikkaron)	zikkaron	stones; “remembrance, memorial”	Twelve stones set up to teach future generations about the Jordan crossing (4:6-7,21-24) — an intergenerational catechetical device.	NEW — Low-Medium risk (positive bridge). Proposed: “pob zeb ua chaw nco txog” (stones as a remembrance). Positive cultural bridge — Hmong oral/material tradition values physical memory-markers and intergenerational storytelling; low collision, comprehension-level only.

Chapter 5 — Circumcision, Passover, Manna’s End, the Captain of the LORD’s Host

Term	Original	Translit.	Literal/Semantic Range	Contextual Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
Circumcision	מוּל (mul, root)	milah	cutting-rite	Renewed at Gilgal (5:2-9) as covenant-sign restoration before entering the land.	REUSED FROM ROMANS TM EXACTLY — “kev txiav (raws li Txoj Kevcai Mauxes).” No new rendering permitted.
Passover	פֶּסַח (pesach)	pesach	”passing over”	Kept at Gilgal immediately before the conquest begins (5:10-11), linking exodus deliverance to land entry.	NEW — Medium risk. Proposed: “Kev Cai Hla Dhau.” Shares the kevcai root collision pattern already documented for baptism/circumcision in the Romans TM (ritual-purification association); comprehension-level teaching note recommended, not a full doctrinal collision given its brief, non-recurring role in this book.
Manna ceases	מָן (man)	man	manna (the wilderness bread)	Ends the day after the first Passover in the land (5:12), marking transition from wilderness provision to the land’s own produce.	NEW — Low risk. Transliterated “mana.” No collision.
Captain of the LORD’s host	שַׂר־צְבָא־יְהוָה (sar tseva YHWH)	sar / tsava	”commander/prince” + “army/host”	A theophanic figure (5:14-15) commanding Joshua to remove his sandals on holy ground — widely read as a Christophany, paralleling Exodus 3.	NEW — Critical risk. Proposed: “tus Thawj Coj ntawm Vajtswv Cov Tub Rog.” This is one of the most theologically sensitive terms in the book: Hmong shamanic cosmology (ua neeb ritual practice) includes invoking and negotiating with spirit-generals/spirit-soldiers (dab tub rog) for protection in conflict. Left unexplained, this figure risks being assimilated into that framework as “a powerful spirit-general Israel’s shaman has recruited,” rather than being recognized as a unique self-revelation of the divine Warrior-King (and, in Christian reading, a Christophany) who commands worship (“holy ground,” “remove your sandals”) rather than being commanded or bargained with. Mandatory theologian review required before any use.
Holy ground	קֺדֶשׁ (qodesh)	qadosh / qodesh	set-apartness, holiness	5:15 — the ground made holy by the theophanic Presence.	REUSED FROM ROMANS TM root — extends the sanctification vocabulary (“dawb huv”) to a place: “thaj chaw dawb huv.” Same folk ritual-purity collision noted above; teach as derivative holiness from divine presence, not an inherently powerful location.

Chapter 6 — Jericho; Herem (Holy War) Introduced

Term	Original	Translit.	Literal/Semantic Range	Contextual Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
Devoted to destruction / the ban	חֵרֶם (cherem)	cherem	that which is set apart/banned, devoted irrevocably (to destruction or to God)	Jericho and its contents are placed under cherem (6:17-21) — total destruction as an act of consecration to YHWH, with silver/gold “devoted” to the treasury rather than plundered. Anchors “Holy War and Divine Judgment.”	NEW — Critical risk. Proposed: “khoom/tej uas raug muab cais rau Vajtswv kom puas tsuaj tag nrho” (that which is set apart to God for total destruction). This is the single highest-risk new term in the book. It must be explicitly and carefully distinguished from: (a) the Romans TM living_sacrifice/propitiation fij vocabulary (this is judicial destruction, not a sacrificial offering achieving atonement); (b) Hmong practices of ritual curse-transfer or spirit-appeasement through destruction/offering of goods; (c) any normative pattern for ongoing Christian ethics or warfare. Mandatory theologian review required for every occurrence, with an explicit teaching note that cherem is a unique, temporally-bounded act of divine judgment executed at God’s specific command within a specific redemptive-historical moment (the conquest), not a template for holy war generally, ethnic violence, or personal vengeance.
The LORD fought / gave the city	(implicit throughout ch. 6, cf. explicit statements ch. 10, 23)	—	—	Even the trumpet/shout ritual (6:4-5,20) is framed as YHWH’s own action, not a magical technique that produces victory through correct ritual performance.	See ch. 10 entry below (Divine Warrior motif) for the full risk analysis; cross-referenced here as the theological frame for Jericho’s fall.

Chapter 7 — Achan’s Sin; Herem Violated

Term	Original	Translit.	Literal/Semantic Range	Contextual Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
Achan’s transgression	חָטָא (chata’) / מַעַל (ma’al)	chata’ / ma’al	to sin, miss the mark; to act unfaithfully, embezzle/breach trust	Achan takes devoted (cherem) plunder for himself, breaking the ban and bringing covenant-community consequences (7:1,11-15).	REUSED FROM ROMANS TM for the general sin vocabulary — “txhaum / kev txhaum” (sin_act_and_condition). New nuance for this chapter: sin here has corporate consequences (the whole camp is implicated, 7:1,11-12), reinforcing rather than contradicting the Romans-documented risk that Hmong custom frames wrongdoing as individually/socially reparable — here Scripture itself teaches a corporate solidarity in guilt, which is a valuable positive bridge to the Original Sin doctrine’s federal-headship teaching already flagged Critical in the Romans package.
Trouble / Valley of Achor	עָכוֹר (Akhor)	Akhor	”trouble, disturbance” (wordplay on Achan’s name)	The place named for the disaster caused by hidden, individual sin’s corporate consequences (7:26).	NEW — Low risk. Proper name; transliterate “Akhau” or gloss as “Lub Hav Kev Ceeblaj” (Valley of Trouble). Comprehension-level only.

Chapter 8 — Ai’s Conquest; the Altar on Mount Ebal; the Law Written on Stone

Term	Original	Translit.	Literal/Semantic Range	Contextual Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
Altar	מִזְבֵּחַ (mizbeach)	mizbeach	place of sacrifice/slaughter	Joshua builds an altar to YHWH on Mount Ebal per Mosaic instruction (8:30-31), reads the Law, and the people hear blessings and curses.	NEW — High risk. Proposed: “lub thaj.” Direct lexical territory shared with ancestral spirit-altars (thaj teev dab, xwm kab); must always be explicitly anchored (“lub thaj rau Vajtswv”) and taught in contrast to ancestor/spirit altars, following the same disambiguation strategy already used for hwjchim and pehawm in the Romans TM.
Blessing and curse	בְּרָכָה (berakhah) / קְלָלָה (qelalah)	berakhah / qelalah	blessing (favor, prosperity) / curse (calamity, disfavor)	Public reading of covenant blessings/curses per Deuteronomy 27-28 pattern (8:33-34), tied to obedience/disobedience to the Law.	berakhah — REUSED FROM ROMANS TM where the ordinary-material sense of “koob hmoov” is explicitly reserved (per the Romans TM’s own notes: “koob hmoov reserved exclusively for ordinary material ‘blessing’ contexts, never for salvific grace”). This is precisely such an ordinary-blessing context, so “koob hmoov” is the correct and permitted rendering here — a useful positive confirmation of the Romans TM’s careful reservation strategy. qelalah — NEW, Medium risk. Proposed: “kev tsis tau koob hmoov” or “kev raug foom tsis zoo” (curse/being cursed). Must be taught as covenantal consequence for disobedience, not capricious ancestral-spirit displeasure.

Chapter 9 — The Gibeonites’ Deception and Israel’s Oath-Keeping

| Term | Original | Translit. | Literal/Semantic Range | Contextual Meaning | Hmong Rendering & Risk | |---|---|---|---|---:| | Covenant / oath (with Gibeon) | בְּרִית (berith) | berith | covenant, treaty, binding agreement | Israel’s leaders swear an oath to spare the Gibeonites despite the deception discovered afterward (9:15,19-20), and uphold it even at cost — establishing covenant-keeping as binding regardless of how the covenant arose. | NEW — Critical risk (core term for “Covenant Renewal at Shechem” doctrine, first substantial appearance here). Proposed: “kev cog lus (ntawm Vajtswv thiab nws Haiv Neeg)” when referring to God’s covenant with Israel; the human-to-human treaty sense here uses the same noun without the divine qualifier, “kev cog lus” alone, but must be taught with the distinguishing note that even a merely human, deception-tainted oath is treated by Scripture as inviolably binding (9:19), reinforcing the weight given to YHWH’s own covenant fidelity celebrated in ch. 24. Kept lexically distinct from the REUSED Romans TM promise entry (“lus cog tseg,” God’s unilateral pledge) — berith is bilateral, oath-sealed, and binding on both parties. |

Chapter 10 — The Southern Coalition; the LORD Fights for Israel; the Sun Stands Still

Term	Original	Translit.	Literal/Semantic Range	Contextual Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
The LORD fought for Israel / gave into Israel’s hand	נִלְחַם (nilcham) / נָתַן בְּיָד (natan be-yad)	lacham / natan	to fight, do battle; to give into the hand of	Repeated refrain (10:8,10,14,19,30,32,42) that victory is YHWH’s direct sovereign act, not a product of Israel’s military skill or ritual technique. Central to “Holy War and Divine Judgment.”	NEW — Critical risk. Proposed: “Vajtswv tau ua rog pab cov Yixalayees” / “Vajtswv muab rau hauv cov Yixalayees txhais tes.” This is the theological frame for every conquest narrative in the book and must be taught with the same care as the power (hwjchim) entry in the Romans TM: God’s unique, sovereign, redemptive-historical warfare on Israel’s behalf must never be generalized into a template for personal “spiritual warfare” against rivals via ritual technique or invoked spirit-power, which is the functional pattern of Hmong shamanic combat with hostile spirits (ua neeb tuag rog, contests between rival txiv neeb). Mandatory theologian review required.
Sun stood still	שֶׁמֶשׁ עָמָד (shemesh ‘amad)	‘amad	to stand still, stop	The extended daylight miracle (10:12-14) given in answer to Joshua’s prayer/command.	NEW — Low-Medium risk. Proposed: “lub hnub tau nres tsis txav.” Comprehension-level miracle-narrative term; no traditional-religion collision identified, though should be taught as a unique historical sign of divine sovereignty over creation, not a repeatable prayer-formula for controlling nature.
Hailstones	אֲבָנִים גְּדֺלוֺת (avanim gedolot, “great stones,” i.e. hail)	—	large stones/hailstones	YHWH’s direct meteorological intervention in battle (10:11).	NEW — Low risk. Straightforward descriptive term, no collision.

Chapter 11 — The Northern Coalition; the Land Has Rest

Term	Original	Translit.	Literal/Semantic Range	Contextual Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
As the LORD commanded Moses	כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה אֶת־מֺשֶׁה	tsavah	to command, order	Recurring refrain (11:12,15,20,23) emphasizing Joshua’s obedience to a prior divine command, not independent initiative — central to “Obedience and the Conquest.”	Uses the REUSED Romans TM law_mosaic_divine qualifier pattern (“…ntawm Vajtswv / Mauxes”) extended to the verb “obey/command”; new verb entry proposed: “raws li Vajtswv tau hais rau Mauxes” (as the LORD had said to Moses). Low-Medium risk, reinforces existing qualifier discipline.
The land had rest from war	שָׁקְטָה הָאָרֶץ מִלָּחְמָה (shaqtah ha’arets mi-lachamah)	shaqat	to be quiet, at rest, undisturbed	11:23 (cf. 14:15) — the completion-refrain marking the initial conquest’s end and anticipating the fuller “rest” theme developed through the book.	NEW — see the dedicated rest entry under ch. 21-23 below; cross-referenced here as its first occurrence.

Chapter 12 — Summary List of Defeated Kings

No new load-bearing theological vocabulary. This chapter is a summary catalogue (kings defeated by Moses east of the Jordan, and by Joshua west of the Jordan) reusing terms already established in chapters 1-11 (land, LORD’s giving/fighting, as commanded). Reviewed and logged as contributing no new terms, per the full-book-coverage mandate.

Chapter 13 — Beginning of the Land Allotment; Unconquered Territory Noted

Term	Original	Translit.	Literal/Semantic Range	Contextual Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
Inheritance / portion	נַחֲלָה (nachalah)	nachal / nachalah	inherited possession, allotted portion, ancestral land-share	The tribal land-shares assigned by lot as Israel’s permanent inheritance (13:6-7 and throughout 13-19).	REUSED FROM ROMANS TM — extends the heir entry (“tus qub txeeg qub teg,” klēronomos) to its cognate noun sense “inheritance/allotted portion”: “qub txeeg qub teg” used substantivally. Medium risk (inherited note: “strong positive resonance with Hmong lineage-inheritance custom” — same positive bridge applies here, now concretized in actual tribal land-shares).
Land still remaining / not yet possessed	(implicit, 13:1,13 “did not drive out”)	—	—	An honest note that conquest and possession are not fully complete even as allotment begins — theologically significant for the tension between promise and partial fulfillment developed through the book (cf. 15:63; 16:10; 17:12-13; 23:4-5,12-13).	NEW — Medium risk. No fixed short phrase proposed; recommend descriptive rendering “tsis tau tso tawm/ntes tag” (not yet driven out/fully taken) with a teaching note connecting this “already/not yet” tension to the doctrine of Rest as anticipatory, not yet exhaustively realized — an important corrective against triumphalist over-readings of the conquest.

Chapter 14 — Caleb’s Inheritance; Wholehearted Following

Term	Original	Translit.	Literal/Semantic Range	Contextual Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
Wholly followed the LORD	מִלֵּא לְלֶכֶת אֱחֲרֵי (mille’ lalekhet ‘acharei)	mille’	to fill, fulfill completely; “to walk fully after”	Caleb’s commendation (14:8-9,14) for undivided covenant loyalty amid the wilderness generation’s unfaithfulness — a model for “Obedience and the Conquest.”	NEW — Medium risk (positive exemplar term). Proposed: “mloog Vajtswv lus tag nrho lub siab” (obey the LORD with the whole heart/liver), echoing the tamim (“wholeness/sincerity”) term already analyzed in the core passage (24:14). Positive reinforcement term; low collision, should be taught as thematically linked to 24:14’s “sincerity and truth.”

Chapters 15-19 — Tribal Boundary Lists and Allotments

No new load-bearing theological vocabulary beyond the inheritance/nachalah term already established in ch. 13 and the tribal/clan terminology (“xeem,” tribe — an existing, stable Hmong term with no collision, comparable in stability to the Romans TM’s Low-risk proper-name entries). These five chapters consist chiefly of geographic boundary lists and town-name enumerations for each of the twelve tribes. Reviewed and logged as contributing no new theological terms beyond consistent reuse of inheritance throughout; translators should simply ensure qub txeeg qub teg is applied consistently to every tribal allotment reference.

Chapter 20 — Cities of Refuge

Term	Original	Translit.	Literal/Semantic Range	Contextual Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
City of refuge	עִיר מִקְלָט (ir miqlat)	miqlat	refuge, asylum, shelter	Six cities designated where a manslayer could flee for legal protection from the blood-avenger pending judgment (20:2-9).	NEW — Medium-High risk (strong positive typological bridge). Proposed: “lub nroog cawm siav” (city of life-saving refuge), deliberately built on the REUSED Romans TM salvation_save root (“cawm,” sōzō) but must be taught with an explicit typological caveat: this is an Old Testament type or foreshadowing image of the ultimate refuge found in Christ, not itself the New Testament doctrine of salvation, and the cawm verb here should not be anchored to “Yexus Khetos” the way the Romans TM mandates for the NT salvation term — rather, it should be flagged in teaching notes as anticipatory. Ties directly to the doctrine “Rest in the Promised Land as a Type of Salvation Rest.”
Blood avenger	גֺּאֵל הַדָּם (go’el haddam)	go’el	redeemer/kinsman-avenger + “of blood”	The victim’s kinsman with customary right (and duty) to avenge a killing, whose pursuit the refuge-city law regulates and limits (20:3,5,9).	NEW — Medium risk (cultural double-edge). Proposed: “tus tshawb nrhiav pauj ntshav” (one who seeks to avenge blood). This maps closely onto real Hmong customary blood-feud/clan-vengeance practice, making it a strong comprehension bridge — but the text’s point is that God’s law limits and regulates vengeance through due process, a corrective that should be explicitly taught alongside the term rather than left implicit, since an unexamined cultural match could cause hearers to read the passage as endorsing clan vengeance customs wholesale rather than restraining them under divine justice.

Chapter 21 — The Levitical Cities

No new load-bearing theological vocabulary beyond inheritance/nachalah (ch. 13) applied to the Levites’ distinctive city-based (rather than territorial) portion, and the tribe-name term “cov Levis” (the Levites) — a stable proper-name transliteration with no collision, parallel in register to the Romans TM’s stable ethnic/tribal terms (jew, greek). This chapter also contains the summary refrain (21:43-45) that “the LORD gave Israel all the land… not one word of all the good promises… failed,” which is the strongest single Old Testament statement of “God’s Faithfulness to the Land Promise” in the book, but requires no new vocabulary beyond the already-established promise (lus cog tseg, REUSED) and promised_land (ch. 1) terms. Reviewed; no new terms.

Chapter 22 — The Altar Controversy and Tribal Unity

No new load-bearing theological vocabulary beyond altar (lub thaj, ch. 8), now applied to the Transjordan tribes’ memorial altar (22:10-29), which nearly provokes civil war until clarified as a witness-memorial rather than a rival sacrificial altar. This reinforces the ch. 8 teaching note (altars must be explicitly anchored to prevent confusion with unauthorized or syncretistic worship) and introduces the existing, stable concept “kev sib koom ua ib” (tribal unity/oneness) at Low-Medium risk, comprehension-level only, related to but distinct from the Romans TM’s body_of_christ unity metaphor (which should not be imported into this OT tribal-unity context without a clear typological disclaimer). Reviewed; one reinforced term, no new Critical/High entries.

Chapter 23 — Joshua’s Farewell Charge

Term	Original	Translit.	Literal/Semantic Range	Contextual Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
Cleave / hold fast to the LORD	דָּבַק (davaq)	davaq	to cling, cleave, stick closely to	Joshua’s exhortation (23:8) to hold fast to YHWH as Israel has done thus far, resisting the surrounding nations’ religious pull.	NEW — Medium risk (positive bridge). Proposed: “lawv nraim thiab nrog ruaj Vajtswv” (follow closely and hold fast to God). Positive devotional term; note the conceptual (not lexical) resonance with the Romans TM’s in_christ_union_formula (“nyob hauv Khetos”) — both express intimate, sustained attachment — but these must remain textually distinct since one is an OT covenant-loyalty exhortation and the other a NT mystical-union formula; do not merge the renderings.
Love the LORD your God	אָהַב (ahav)	ahav	to love	23:11 — Joshua’s charge to “take good heed… to love the LORD your God.”	REUSED FROM ROMANS TM EXACTLY — “kev hlub” (agapē baseline entry), object stated explicitly as “Vajtswv,” consistent with the Romans TM’s stable, no-collision status for this term.
Land had rest (recap)	(see ch. 11)	shaqat	—	23:1, recapitulating the ch. 11 rest-refrain as the frame for Joshua’s whole farewell address.	Cross-referenced to the dedicated rest entry (below); no additional new vocabulary.

Dedicated entry — Rest (menuchah / shaqat), first surfacing ch. 1 and 11, developed through 14:15, 21:44, 22:4, and climaxing in the frame of ch. 23:

Term	Original	Translit.	Literal/Semantic Range	Contextual Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
Rest	מְנוּחָה (menuchah) / שָׁקַט (shaqat)	menuchah / shaqat	quietness, settledness, cessation from struggle; a secure dwelling-place	God’s gift of rest from warfare and enemies as the culmination of the conquest — theologically developed elsewhere in Scripture (e.g., Hebrews 3-4) as a type of eschatological salvation-rest. Anchors “Rest in the Promised Land as a Type of Salvation Rest.”	NEW — High risk (typological, not lexical-collision, risk). Proposed: “kev so” (rest) as the base term, with the land-specific compound “thaj av uas tau kev so” (the land that has [obtained] rest). Lexically low-collision (rest/so is a neutral, everyday Hmong term with no traditional-religion competing referent), but doctrinally High risk because the typological connection to ultimate salvation-rest is easily lost or flattened into a merely political/military “peace from war” reading if not explicitly taught. Must be paired with a teaching note connecting this rest, by way of anticipation/type, to the REUSED Romans TM eternal_life entry (“txoj sia nyob mus ib txhis”) and to the broader NT rest-in-Christ theme — while making clear this connection is typological/anticipatory, not a direct lexical equivalence.

Chapter 24 — Covenant Renewal at Shechem (Core Passage Chapter)

Verses 14-15 receive full verse-by-verse treatment in §1 above. Additional load-bearing terms elsewhere in the chapter:

Term	Original	Translit.	Literal/Semantic Range	Contextual Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
Historical recital (vv. 2-13)	(narrative, no single lexeme)	—	—	Joshua recounts YHWH’s saving acts from Abraham through the conquest before issuing the covenant demand — grace-then-obligation structure paralleling Paul’s own argumentative pattern in Romans (indicative before imperative).	No new lexical entry required; note the structural/rhetorical parallel for teaching purposes, connecting Joshua 24 and Romans 12:1’s “therefore” (both root ethical demand in prior divine action).
Statutes and ordinances	חֺק וּמִשְׁפָּט (choq u-mishpat)	choq / mishpat	decree, prescribed rule / judgment, legal ordinance	24:25 — Joshua “made a statute and an ordinance” at Shechem, formalizing the renewed covenant in legal terms.	NEW — Medium risk. Proposed: “kevcai thiab kev txiav txim” — deliberately echoes the REUSED Romans TM law_mosaic_divine root (Txoj Kevcai) to reinforce continuity between the Mosaic Law and this covenant-renewal act; low collision beyond the already-documented kevcai root caution.
Witness (stone)	עֵד (ed)	ed	witness, testimony	The great stone set up “for a witness” (24:26-27) against the people should they later renounce the covenant.	REUSED FROM ROMANS TM — extends the witness entry (“tus timkhawv,” martys) to an inanimate object: “pob zeb ua timkhawv.” Low-Medium risk, comprehension-level extension of an already-stable term.
The mighty acts of God at the Red Sea, wilderness, and conquest (vv. 5-13)	(narrative references)	—	—	Rhetorically functions exactly as Paul’s own argument-from-God’s-prior-faithfulness (cf. Romans 9-11’s argument from Israel’s covenant history).	No new lexical entry; cross-reference for curriculum-writers connecting Joshua 24’s rhetorical structure to Romans’ argument from divine faithfulness.

---

3. Cross-Book Term-Reuse Summary

The following Romans TM entries are reused exactly, without modification, at their documented risk levels, throughout Joshua: god (Vajtswv), lord (tus Tswv), promise (lus cog tseg), faith_believe (kev ntseeg/ntseeg), worship_serve_cultic (pehawm/pab teev, +Vajtswv object), sanctification root (kev raug ua kom dawb huv), idol (dab mlom — used contrastively against Rahab’s confession and against the “other gods” of 24:14-15), law_mosaic_divine (Txoj Kevcai ntawm Vajtswv/Mauxes), circumcision (kev txiav raws li Txoj Kevcai Mauxes), heir/inheritance root (tus qub txeeg qub teg), salvation_save root (kev cawm dim/cawm — used with an explicit typological, not christological, anchor in the cities-of-refuge context), witness (tus timkhawv), love (kev hlub), eternal_life root (txoj sia nyob mus ib txhis), nations_gentiles (lwm Haiv Neeg), jew/greek-style proper-noun transliteration conventions (extended ad hoc to Joshua’s own proper nouns: Amorites, Rahab, etc.), power (hwjchim, +Vajtswv qualifier — relevant to the Divine Warrior motif of chs. 6, 10, 11), mercy (txoj kev khuv leej — kept distinct from the new chesed entry per ch. 2), and election_choose (kev xaiv — explicitly flagged in the core-passage analysis above as requiring careful disambiguation from Joshua 24:15’s human-choice sense, never conflated).

No Critical or High risk term already fixed in the Romans TM has been altered, re-glossed, or substituted anywhere in this analysis, per the governing instruction that established renderings must be reused exactly.