Jude — Linguistic Gap Analysis (Hmong)

0. Purpose and Method

This document performs the PRD Phase 1 Step 8 linguistic gap analysis for the Jude Language Package, built on top of the Hmong Romans Language Package Baseline v1.0. It answers three questions for every doctrinally load-bearing term-cluster in Jude 1:1-25 (the whole letter is the core passage):

1. What Hmong vocabulary is actually available, and where does it fall short (semantic mismatch, comprehension gap, or active collision with Hmong traditional religion — animism, ancestor veneration, shamanism/txiv neeb, fate/hmoov, ritual pollution/khawv koob)?
2. Where are semantic neighborhoods overcrowded — i.e., where does a single Hmong root (hwjchim, fij, dab, ntsuj plig, kevcai, khaws, saib ntsej muag, ntseeg) have to carry multiple, doctrinally distinct Jude referents, requiring a fencing strategy (qualifier phrases, co-text anchors, or lexical differentiation) to prevent doctrinal bleed-through?
3. Where is a genuine vocabulary gap (no native referent at all — reefs, olive-adjacent nautical/pastoral/astronomical imagery, angelic hierarchy, athletic-contest metaphor, non-canonical citation) that requires comprehension scaffolding rather than a collision fix?

Risk tiers below use the baseline’s exact four-tier definitions (Critical / High / Medium / Low) from assets/bible_term_registry.json registry_metadata.risk_tier_definitions. Every doctrine in this Language Package is Critical- or High-touching (per analysis/08_core_glossary.md §D), consistent with the baseline’s finding for Romans that this curriculum family contains no Medium/Low-risk doctrine tier.

---

1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

#	Doctrine	Available Hmong Terms (fixed/proposed)	Weaknesses	Recommended Strategy
1	Contending for the Faith Once Delivered	txoj kev ntseeg uas twb muab cob rau ib zaug tas mus li, tsis hloov dua li lawm (the faith, G1/#17); ib zaug tas mus li (once for all, G3/#18); siv zog tiv thaiv txoj kev ntseeg (contend, G2/#19); kev ntseeg / ntseeg (baseline subjective faith, A11); cov uas Vajtswv hu lawm (called, G37/#11)	Hmong has no single native noun that inherently distinguishes “faith” as a fixed historical deposit of doctrine from “faith” as an ongoing personal-trust verb; the baseline’s only prior faith-vocabulary (kev ntseeg / ntseeg) is built entirely around the subjective sense. Without a structural qualifier, “the faith” in 1:3 and 1:20 will default to the familiar subjective reading and Jude’s central polemic (an already-fixed, non-negotiable deposit under attack) is lost.	Treat the descriptive phrase txoj kev ntseeg uas twb muab cob rau ib zaug tas mus li, tsis hloov dua li lawm as a fixed compound parallel in status to the baseline’s raug suav tias ncaj ncees — mandatory at 1:3 and 1:20, never abbreviated to bare kev ntseeg in these two verses. First-occurrence footnote required per the baseline’s compound-phrase introduction rule (§6 of 12_ai_translation_requirements.md).
2	Judgment on Ungodly False Teachers	tus tsis hwm Vajtswv / kev tsis hwm Vajtswv (ungodly, A12, risk-elevated to High for this curriculum); txhaum / kev txhaum (sin, A13); twb raug teem tseg ua ntej lawm rau qhov kev txiav txim no (marked out beforehand, G4); cov uas npau suav... (dreamers, G12); kev ua phem tsis txwv cai (sensuality, G5)	The baseline’s asebēs vocabulary was calibrated in Romans for a single, relatively low-density theological statement (4:5). In Jude it recurs five times in twenty-five verses (including a fourfold cluster at 1:15), functioning as a proper-noun-like label for a specific judged faction. Density risk: hearers may reinterpret “ungodly” as a social/tribal slur against a rival group rather than a theologically precise, judicially-loaded category.	Reuse the exact baseline rendering with zero re-gloss (per 12_ai_translation_requirements.md §2 no-re-gloss rule), but escalate review routing to mandatory theologian sign-off at every occurrence (already reflected in bible_term_registry.json #24, #43). Teaching notes must explicitly state that “ungodly” names a moral-theological condition (rejection of God’s lordship and grace, 1:4) documented by conduct, not an ethnic or clan designation.
3	Old Testament Warnings as Types (Israel, Angels, Sodom)	cov Yixalayees (Israel, A24); cov timtswv (angel, G7); cov timtswv uas tsis khaws lawv qhov chaw thawj phaum... (fallen angels, G8); kev sib deev tsis raws li ib txwm muaj... (strange flesh, G13); Xaudoos thiab Kaumaulas (Sodom/Gomorrah, transliterated)	Three separate collision/gap risks converge in one short passage (1:5-7): (a) Israel-as-warning risks blending with the baseline’s Israel-as-promise doctrine (Romans 11) if not distinguished; (b) angelic rebellion/imprisonment risks assimilation into the Hmong spirit-hierarchy (ranked territorial/ancestral dab); (c) Sodom’s sexual-immorality description requires formal, non-vulgar register while still conveying moral seriousness.	For (a): explicit teaching note contrasting “warning example” (Jude 1:5) with “irrevocable covenant promise” (Romans 11:29) so the two uses of cov Yixalayees are never merged into a single flattened doctrine. For (b): mandatory teaching note distinguishing a unique, one-time, already-judged angelic rebellion from the ongoing, negotiable native spirit-hierarchy that shamans interact with ritually. For (c): retain the descriptive, non-graphic register already fixed in G13/#50; do not add explanatory vulgarity for “clarity.”
4	Mercy and Rescue of the Wavering	txoj kev khuv leej (mercy, A21); khuv leej cov uas tseem muaj xyov ua li cas... (mercy on wavering, G30/#54); cawm lwm tus kom dim, dob lawv tawm hauv hluav taws kub tam sim ntawd (snatch from fire, G31/#23); ntxub txawm yog lub tsho uas raug kev txhaum ua qias tsis huv los ntxub (stained garment, G32/#55)	Mercy is well-attested and kept distinct from grace (baseline forbidden-substitution rule already covers this). But the pastoral instructions of 1:22-23 carry two further risks: (i) a documented Greek manuscript variant affecting whether the first response to waverers is “have mercy” or “rebuke/refute,” which changes the pastoral posture taught; (ii) “stained garment” imagery risks being heard through the lens of Hmong ritual-pollution taboo (contact defilement requiring ceremonial cleansing) rather than as a moral-contamination metaphor.	(i) Escalate to mandatory theologian confirmation of base text before finalizing any curriculum wording of 1:22 (already flagged in bible_term_registry.json #54); do not silently pick a reading. (ii) Pair the stained-garment image with an explicit teaching note parallel to the baseline’s dawb huv/sanctification note: this is moral, not ceremonial, contamination, and mercy toward the person is not cancelled by caution toward the sin.
5	Kept by God and Presented Blameless	khaws cia (kept/keep/reserved, G15/#52); tus uas muaj peevxwm khaws nej cia kom tsis txhob dawm ceg (guard from stumbling, #57); muab nej tso rau ntawm nws lub yeeb koob, tsis muaj chaw thuam li (present blameless, G33/#58)	khaws cia must bear Jude’s entire deliberate irony — the same root verb applies to believers being kept for Christ (1:1, positive/custodial) and to rebellious angels being kept in chains (1:6, negative/judicial). Natural Hmong idiom may reach for two different verbs for these opposite senses, flattening the wordplay that is central to the letter’s rhetorical structure. Separately, “blameless” (amōmos) risks being heard through the shamanic sacrificial-offering domain, where ritual perfection of an offering is human-achieved.	Use khaws cia consistently across all five occurrences (1:1, 1:6, 1:13, 1:21, 1:24) with context alone, never a different verb root, distinguishing positive/custodial from negative/judicial sense — this is a deliberate wordplay-preservation decision, not an oversight. Teaching note required at first occurrence explaining the paired positive/negative uses. For “blameless,” mandatory explicit teaching that the standing is God’s own achievement flowing from his preserving power (v.24a), never human ritual perfection — this directly reinforces, not contradicts, the baseline’s Critical grace/justification doctrines.
6	Doxology and God’s Preserving Power	hwjchim (power, always Vajtswv hwjchim, A16); Vajtswv lub yeeb koob, nws lub fwjchim loj kawg nkaus, nws lub hwjchim, thiab nws txoj cai kav txhua yam (fourfold doxology, G36/#64); tus Cawmseej tib leeg xwb (only Savior, G35/#60)	The closing doxology (1:24-25) is the single densest concentration in Jude of the baseline’s flagged hwjchim-family collision (shamanic ritual power), compounded by the fact that kratos and exousia both sit inside that same flagged family and the identical civil-authority phrase (cov muaj hwjchim kav teb chaws, Romans 13) exists elsewhere in the curriculum family referring to a completely different referent (delegated human government).	Every occurrence in 1:24-25 must carry the explicit Vajtswv (or nws, referring back to Vajtswv) possessive anchor with zero exceptions — never bare hwjchim or bare cai kav. Explicit disambiguation note required distinguishing this doxological, underived, ultimate divine sovereignty from the civil-authority sense used elsewhere, despite the shared Greek root and overlapping Hmong vocabulary.

---

2. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods

2.1 Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods Requiring Fencing

These are cases where one Hmong root or morpheme must serve multiple, doctrinally distinct Jude referents, creating a risk of bleed-through if not fenced with qualifiers, co-text, or explicit teaching notes.

Neighborhood	Competing Referents Sharing It	Fencing Strategy
ntsuj plig / Vaj Ntsuj Plig	(a) the divine Holy Spirit (1:19b, 1:20); (b) the ordinary human soul/spirit, explicitly denied to have (b) the Spirit in 1:19a; (c) the broader animistic multi-soul concept in the surrounding culture.	The Vaj-prefix distinction is already fixed and Critical in the baseline; Jude 1:19 is flagged (bible_term_registry.json #7) as the single most doctrinally decisive application of this rule in either curriculum, because the verse’s entire rhetorical point depends on the contrast being visible. Zero tolerance for dropping the prefix in either direction anywhere in Jude.
hwjchim (power/authority family)	(a) God’s own preserving power (1:24-25, doctrine 6); (b) civil governing authority (baseline Romans 13, cross-referenced but not itself present in Jude); (c) shamanic ritual power (the native default sense if left unqualified).	Structural qualifier Vajtswv hwjchim mandatory at every Jude occurrence (1:24, 1:25); the civil-authority phrase is never invoked in Jude and must not be imported by association.
fij (sacrificial-offering domain)	(a) Christ’s atonement (baseline, Romans 3, not directly quoted in Jude but part of the shared conceptual field); (b) living-sacrifice ethical devotion (baseline, Romans 12); (c) amōmos/“blameless” sacrificial-purity imagery applied metaphorically to believers’ final standing (Jude 1:24); (d) shamanic spirit-appeasement offerings (fij dab), the native default.	Jude 1:24’s “present blameless” must be taught with an explicit disambiguating note (per bible_term_registry.json #58) that this is God’s achievement via his preserving power, not a human-perfected ritual offering — reinforcing rather than duplicating the baseline’s (a)/(b)/(d) distinctions, since Jude does not use the word fij itself but draws on the same conceptual domain through amōmos.
dab (spirit) morpheme	(a) dab mlom (idol, baseline); (b) dab Ntxwg Nyoog (the singular, personal chief adversary, Jude 1:9); (c) the broad, undifferentiated native category of ancestral/nature/household spirits generally.	Teaching note mandatory at first occurrence of dab Ntxwg Nyoog distinguishing the definite, singular, personal fallen being from the count-noun native category; must never be pluralized or treated as one instance among many dab.
khaws / khaws cia (keep, guard, reserve)	(a) believers kept for Christ, custodial/positive (1:1, 1:21, 1:24); (b) rebellious angels kept in chains, judicial/negative (1:6); (c) false teachers’ judgment reserved (1:13); (d) folk protective-charm/binding-spell practice (khawv koob) and soul-calling (hu plig), the native default association for supernatural “keeping.”	Consistent verb choice across all five occurrences (see doctrine 5 above) plus an explicit teaching note that this “keeping” is sovereign grace flowing from union with Christ, never a magical/ritual safeguard performed by a practitioner.
saib ntsej muag / tsis saib ntsej muag (face-favoritism idiom)	(a) God’s impartiality (baseline, Romans 2, positive/negated form); (b) the false teachers’ partiality-for-profit (Jude 1:16, positive/asserted form, deliberately inverted).	Because Jude 1:16 uses the positive form (saib ntsej muag rau luag, showing favoritism) as a direct rhetorical inversion of the baseline’s negated form, curriculum content must make the intertextual contrast explicit — God does not saib ntsej muag; these false teachers do, for gain — rather than presenting 1:16 as an unrelated new idiom.
kevcai root (Txoj Kevcai, kev cai raus dej, kev cai dab qhuas)	Jude does not use Txoj Kevcai directly, but invokes Moses (1:9) and thus the whole baseline Law-conceptual field is adjacent; the root also underlies “custom/rite” broadly in Hmong.	No new fencing action required beyond baseline discipline (Txoj Kevcai (ntawm Vajtswv / Mauxes) qualifier), since Jude’s use of Moses is narrative (dispute over his body) rather than doctrinal-legal; flag only if future lesson content extrapolates a Law-doctrine point from 1:9 not present in the text.
ntseeg / kev ntseeg (faith, subjective) vs. “the faith” (objective deposit)	(a) subjective trust/belief verb (1:5, of Israel; baseline general use); (b) the fixed, historical, non-negotiable doctrinal deposit (1:3, 1:20).	See doctrine-matrix row 1 above; the objective sense must always carry its full fixed compound qualifier, never a bare kev ntseeg, in 1:3 and 1:20 specifically.
timtswv (angel) vs. tus Tub Txib (apostle)	Both denote “sent/authorized messenger” at a root-conceptual level, but one is a heavenly being (Jude 1:6, 1:9, 1:14) and the other a human office (Jude 1:17, baseline Romans).	Already lexically distinct in current renderings; this analysis confirms the distinction must be preserved and never collapsed for stylistic variation, since Jude uses both categories within the same short letter and any confusion would blur the Korah-typology point about rejecting Moses’ (human, apostolic-parallel) authority versus the angelic-rebellion point.

2.2 Genuine Vocabulary Gaps (Comprehension-Level, No Direct Collision)

These require explanatory scaffolding (illustrative notes, glosses) rather than a collision-avoidance strategy, since no competing traditional-religion referent exists.

Gap	Jude Ref.	Nature of Gap	Scaffolding Recommendation
despotēs vs. kyrios — two distinct “master/lord” titles paired in one clause	1:4	Hmong has one primary honorific-authority term (tus Tswv); no natural second word exists for “absolute owner” distinct from “sovereign lord” without a periphrasis.	Retain the proposed periphrasis tus Tswv Kav Txhua Yam (G6/#8) used alongside, never replacing, tus Tswv; footnote explaining the double-title pairs with the doulos/qhev ownership metaphor already in the baseline.
agapē (love, the virtue) vs. agapai (love feast, a church institution)	1:1,2,3,12,17,20,21 vs. 1:12	Hmong has a strong native word for love (kev hlub) but no prior institutional referent for a communal fellowship meal tied to the Lord’s Supper.	Keep rooj mov sib hlub ntawm cov ntseeg (G18/#37) lexically distinct from kev hlub; first-occurrence explanatory note describing the historical early-church practice.
Athletic-contest metaphor: epagōnizesthai (“contend,” lit. to struggle in a public games-contest)	1:3	No native Hmong sport/contest domain maps cleanly onto Greco-Roman athletic combat imagery.	Accept the descriptive-verb solution already proposed (siv zog tiv thaiv txoj kev ntseeg) without attempting a literal sport-metaphor equivalent; note in teaching material that the underlying image is one of vigorous, effortful struggle, not passive holding.
Nautical imagery: spilades (hidden reefs)	1:12	Highland Hmong agrarian/hunting context has minimal native seafaring vocabulary; underwater hazard-rock imagery is unfamiliar.	Illustrative note recommended (as already flagged in bible_term_registry.json #39), possibly substituting a locally resonant hazard image (e.g., a hidden pit or submerged snag in a river) in teaching commentary only, never in the translated text itself.
Pastoral/shepherding imagery: poimainontes heautous (shepherding only themselves)	1:12	Hmong highland economy is rice-farming/hunting-oriented, not herding-oriented; shepherd/flock imagery is comprehensible but not experientially native (parallels the baseline’s olive-tree-grafting gap in Romans 11).	Illustrative note recommended, drawing the analogy explicit (a leader who “farms” only for himself while letting the community’s shared fields go untended), parallel in method to the baseline’s grafting note.
Astronomical imagery: asteres planētai (wandering stars)	1:13	The ancient concept of “wandering” (irregularly-moving) stars/planets, as opposed to fixed stars, is not an active native astronomical category.	Brief explanatory note on ancient astronomy required; no lexical collision.
Non-canonical citation: Enoch’s prophecy	1:14-15	Comprehension/canonical-status gap: Jude quotes a text (1 Enoch) outside the Hmong Bible’s canon; readers may wonder why.	Curriculum-level canonical-status note required (not a translation issue); confirm this is addressed in accompanying teaching material, not the scriptural text itself.
Legal/forensic idiom: “marked out beforehand” as a settled prior verdict	1:4	Village-court/clan-judgment concepts exist in Hmong culture, but a pre-recorded, prior-to-the-act verdict (as opposed to judgment following an act) is a comprehension gap layered on top of the Critical election-vocabulary collision risk (see §3 doctrine matrix row 2 and §3 ranked list below).	Combine the descriptive rendering already proposed (G4/#26) with an explicit teaching note on the difference between a foreknown-and-recorded verdict and an impersonal, retroactive village accusation.

---

3. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions

Item	Category	Decision	Rationale
Yudas (author), Yakaunpaus, Kayees, Npalaas, Khaulas, Enauj, Mikhas, Xaudoos, Kaumaulas, Iziv	Proper names	Transliterate, following established RPA/Hmong Bible transliteration conventions (parallel to fixed baseline names Mauxes, Yixalayees, Adas).	Consistency with existing Hmong Bible tradition register (§5 of 12_ai_translation_requirements.md); however all are logged [TRANSLATOR REVIEW NEEDED] per analysis/08_core_glossary.md §C pending confirmation against any existing published Hmong NT usage, since this is the first Hmong Jude package.
Yudas (author) specifically	Proper name, disambiguation	Transliterate, with mandatory disambiguation note.	Shares a root with the baseline’s fixed cov Yudas (Jew/Ioudaios, Low risk); running text and book title must make unmistakably clear this names an individual person, not the ethnic-group noun, and is not to be confused with Judas Iscariot.
despotēs	Technical theological term	Paraphrase, not transliterate: tus Tswv Kav Txhua Yam.	A transliterated loanword would be opaque and would forfeit the needed contrast with qhev/doulos (total ownership); paraphrase preserves the doctrinal force while a loanword would sidestep it, consistent with the baseline’s rejected-loanword pattern for hilastērion and baptism.
diabolos	Theological/angelological term	Partial retention (native morpheme dab + proper title Ntxwg Nyoog), not full transliteration.	Existing Hmong Christian convention already in use; full transliteration would be unintelligible, while a fully native paraphrase would lose the personal, proper-noun character of the singular adversary. Retained per existing convention, flagged for confirmation.
hilastērion-family concepts (referenced conceptually via amōmos, though not directly quoted)	Cross-reference only	No new transliteration decision required; baseline’s paraphrase (qhov theej txhoj kev txhaum) stands unchanged and is not re-triggered by Jude’s vocabulary.	Confirming no drift: Jude 1:24’s “blameless” is a distinct Greek term (amōmos) from hilastērion and must not be merged into or confused with the baseline atonement term.
pistis (objective, “the faith”)	Technical theological compound	Paraphrase, full descriptive compound, not a single transliterated or single-word native term.	No single Hmong word carries both “belief” and “fixed historical doctrinal deposit”; a single-word solution (whether native or loaned) would default hearers to the baseline’s subjective sense. The paraphrase functions analogously to the baseline’s raug suav tias ncaj ncees — a structurally-enforced compound, not a simplification.
Abba (not present in Jude, cross-reference to baseline)	N/A	Not applicable to Jude; noted only to confirm no analogous Aramaic retention is required here.	Jude contains no comparable Aramaic loanword requiring the baseline’s Abba, Leej Txiv treatment.
Athletic/nautical/pastoral/astronomical imagery (§2.2)	Cultural imagery, not technical theology	Paraphrase/direct translation of the image itself, retained in the scriptural text; explanatory scaffolding placed in surrounding teaching material only.	Per the baseline’s established practice with the olive-tree grafting metaphor (Romans 11): the metaphor is preserved in-text for fidelity, and comprehension gaps are addressed through accompanying notes, never by substituting a domesticated local image into the translated verse itself.
Enoch citation (1:14-15)	Canonical-status issue	Transliterate + retain quotation; add canonical-status note in teaching material.	The text of Jude genuinely quotes 1 Enoch; altering or omitting this to avoid the canonical question would misrepresent the source text. The gap is pedagogical, not lexical.

---

4. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities in Jude

Ranked by combined weight of (a) doctrinal load-bearing significance, (b) strength/specificity of collision with Hmong traditional religion, and (c) density/prominence within this short, single-chapter letter.

1. Jude 1:19 — psychikoi, pneuma mē echontes (natural/soulish, devoid of the Spirit). Critical. The single most doctrinally decisive juxtaposition of ntsuj plig against Vaj Ntsuj Plig in either curriculum; a dropped or misapplied Vaj-prefix here does not merely blur a nuance but inverts the verse’s entire argument (that false teachers lack what genuine believers have). Doctrine: Judgment on Ungodly False Teachers; Sanctification (baseline cross-reference).

2. Jude 1:4 — Grace perverted into sensuality (txiaj ntsim + kev ua phem tsis txwv cai). Critical. This is the single most direct NT statement of the exact collision the baseline’s Critical grace entry (Romans 3-11) was written to prevent; any drift toward koob hmoov-adjacent vocabulary or any teaching that implies grace could legitimately license license would activate the baseline’s most severe forbidden-substitution rule in the most rhetorically loaded verse of the letter. Doctrine: Judgment on Ungodly False Teachers; Grace and Salvation by Faith Alone (baseline).

3. Jude 1:4 — “Marked out beforehand for condemnation” (election/foreknowledge collision). Critical. Sits inside the baseline’s permanently-forbidden hmoov (fate) collision zone; unlike Romans 9’s more abstract treatment, here the doctrine is applied to a specific, currently-active group of false teachers, raising the pastoral stakes of getting the personal/volitional framing right versus an impersonal fatalistic one. Doctrine: Judgment on Ungodly False Teachers (cross-referencing baseline Election doctrine).

4. Jude 1:24-25 — Fourfold doxology (hwjchim/kratos/exousia cluster). High. Concentrates three converging baseline-flagged risk families (shamanic-power hwjchim, civil-authority exousia homograph, and the tēreō-keeping wordplay) into the letter’s climactic two verses; omitting the Vajtswv-possessive anchor at any single point in this cluster would be immediately noticeable to a careful reviewer and doctrinally serious. Doctrine: Doxology and God’s Preserving Power.

5. Jude 1:1, 6, 13, 21, 24 — tēreō/khaws cia wordplay. High. The letter’s central literary-theological thread; flattening the deliberate positive/negative pairing into two different verbs (a natural temptation for a translator seeking idiomatic variety) would erase Jude’s rhetorical structure. Compounded by risk of assimilation into folk protective-charm (khawv koob) or soul-calling (hu plig) practice if presented without explicit teaching. Doctrine: Kept by God and Presented Blameless.

6. Jude 1:3, 1:20 — “The faith” (objective deposit) vs. subjective kev ntseeg. High. If the fixed compound qualifier is dropped even once, the letter’s opening thesis statement (contend for a fixed, already-delivered faith) collapses into an exhortation to “have more personal faith,” losing doctrine 1 entirely. Doctrine: Contending for the Faith Once Delivered.

7. Jude 1:9 — “The Lord rebuke you” (Michael’s deferral). High. Direct, specific behavioral contrast with the widely-practiced Hmong shamanic pattern of a practitioner personally confronting and commanding spirits by ritual power; if this contrast is not made explicit, the verse could be read as validating personal spirit-confrontation technique rather than modeling humility and deferred authority. Doctrine: Old Testament Warnings as Types (Angels); Judgment on Ungodly False Teachers.

8. Jude 1:8 — Dreamers/false visionaries (npau suav/trance-vision language). High. Direct collision with txiv neeb shamanic trance-revelation practice, one of the most culturally central forms of religious authority in traditional Hmong society; risk that the passage is read as a blanket condemnation of dreams/visions generically rather than of specific self-authorized false teachers who reject apostolic authority. Doctrine: Judgment on Ungodly False Teachers.

9. Jude 1:24 — “Present blameless” (amōmos, sacrificial-purity imagery). High. Draws on the unblemished-offering conceptual domain shared with the shamanic fij dab sacrificial system, in which ritual perfection is achieved by the offerer; without explicit teaching, believers’ “blameless” final standing could be heard as an achievement to strive for and eventually earn, undermining the letter’s own emphasis (v.24a) that God himself is the one who guards and presents. Doctrine: Kept by God and Presented Blameless.

10. Jude 1:6 — Fallen angels who abandoned their domain. High. Risks assimilation into the Hmong spirit-hierarchy worldview of ranked, territorial ancestral/nature spirits with assigned domains, which (unlike Jude’s angels) remain active, negotiable, and ritually engageable; without a clear teaching note, hearers may map the “kept in chains” angels onto still-operative territorial spirits rather than a unique, already-completed, already-judged rebellion. Doctrine: Old Testament Warnings as Types (Angels).

11. Jude 1:22 — Mercy on the wavering (manuscript-variant risk). High. The pastoral posture taught (compassionate outreach first, vs. correction/rebuke first) depends on a disputed textual reading; this is not merely a lexical ambiguity but a genuine textual-critical fork with real pastoral consequences for how doctrine 4 is embodied in practice. Doctrine: Mercy and Rescue of the Wavering.

12. Jude 1:23 — Hating the stained garment. High. Risks assimilation into Hmong ritual-pollution/taboo categories (contact-defilement requiring ceremonial cleansing, e.g., after contact with death) rather than being received as a metaphor for moral contamination requiring wise pastoral caution alongside continued mercy. Doctrine: Mercy and Rescue of the Wavering.

13. Jude 1:9 — dab Ntxwg Nyoog (the devil). Medium. Retains the dab morpheme shared with the broad native spirit category; lower risk than items above because the existing Hmong Christian convention is already established and the singular/personal referent is reinforced by the proper title, but still requires a standing teaching note. Doctrine: Old Testament Warnings as Types (Angels).

14. Jude 1:16 — Flattery for gain vs. God’s impartiality (inverted idiom reuse). Medium. Not a traditional-religion collision but a structural risk: if the intertextual inversion of saib ntsej muag is not flagged, the deliberate rhetorical contrast with God’s character is lost and the phrase reads as a disconnected new idiom. Doctrine: Judgment on Ungodly False Teachers.

15. Jude 1:11-12 — Cain/Balaam/Korah typology and love-feast/shepherding imagery. Medium. Comprehension gaps (unfamiliar OT narratives; unfamiliar church institution; non-native herding economy) rather than collisions; manageable with narrative glosses and illustrative notes, consistent with the baseline’s precedent-setting olive-tree-grafting note in Romans 11.

---

5. Cross-References and Governing Note

This analysis inherits and extends, without contradicting:

• assets/translation_memory.json (Hmong Romans Language Package Baseline v1.0) — all fixed renderings and forbidden substitutions listed there remain in force unchanged for every Jude term reusing baseline vocabulary.
• assets/bible_term_registry.json (Jude) — the term-by-term collision/gap rationale summarized here is drawn directly from that registry’s translation_notes fields.
• analysis/08_core_glossary.md — Tables A (reused terms), B (new terms), C (proper names), and D (doctrine cross-reference index) are the source inventory for this gap analysis; no new terms are introduced here that are not already logged there.
• assets/doctrine_risk_registry.json (Romans baseline) — the review-routing convention (Critical/High → mandatory human theologian review; Medium → native speaker review; Low → automated review sufficient) is assumed to carry forward identically for the forthcoming Jude doctrine risk registry, since every doctrine in this Language Package is Critical- or High-tier.

No recommendation in this document authorizes any deviation from a baseline-fixed rendering. Where this analysis identifies a “crowded neighborhood” or “gap,” the prescribed remedy is always a fencing strategy (qualifier, co-text anchor, teaching note, or first-occurrence gloss) — never a substitute lexical choice — consistent with the baseline’s structural rule that qualifier-phrase enforcement is never optional, even under space or register pressure.