Judges — Phase 1 Semantic Analysis (Hmong Language Package)

0. Methodology Note

Judges (Hebrew: Shophetim / שֹׁפְטִים) was composed in Biblical Hebrew, not Koine Greek. Following standard text-critical practice, this analysis gives the Hebrew (Masoretic Text) term as the primary “original word” for every entry, with the Septuagint (LXX) Koine Greek rendering supplied alongside as the secondary reference point, since the LXX is the Greek witness this pipeline’s tooling conventions are built around and is also the text-form most patristic and many historic Bible-translation traditions used when Hebrew resources were scarce. Where the LXX translator’s Greek choice materially affects meaning (e.g., shophet → κριτής “judge”; ruach → πνεῦμα “spirit/breath”), this is noted.

All destination-language (Hmong, RPA script) renderings follow the register, script, and enforcement conventions of the Romans baseline Language Package: formal, reverent, literary Hmong consistent with the existing Hmong Bible translation tradition (Vajtswv Txoj Lus). Every term already fixed in assets/translation_memory.json is reused verbatim below; no alternate gloss is proposed for any inherited Critical/High term. New terms surfaced by Judges that have no Romans-package precedent are proposed here as candidate TM entries, each with a risk tier and rationale, for formal adoption in the Judges-specific extension of the Translation Memory (see 08_core_glossary.md).

Chapter/verse citation in this document follows the Romans baseline convention adapted to this book: Kevcai Txiav Txim [chapter]:[verse] is the working destination-language book-name candidate (see note in §2, Chapter 1) pending formal citation-convention confirmation in a later Phase 2 document; English chapter:verse is used throughout this analysis file for cross-reference clarity.

---

1. Core Passage: Judges 2:6-19 — Verse-by-Verse Analysis

This passage is the theological hinge of the entire book: it summarizes the generational pattern (faithfulness under Joshua → forgetting God → apostasy → judgment → raised-up deliverer → temporary respite → relapse) that every subsequent narrative cycle in chapters 3-16 enacts. It is the primary textual anchor for Doctrine 1 (The Cycle of Sin, Judgment, and Deliverance), Doctrine 4 (Apostasy and Covenant Unfaithfulness), and Doctrine 3 (God’s Grace through Flawed Deliverers).

Judges 2:6

• Original (Hebrew): וַיִּשְׁלַ֤ח יְהוֹשֻׁ֨עַ אֶת־הָעָ֗ם … אִ֥ישׁ לְנַֽחֲלָתֽוֹ
• LXX Greek: καὶ ἀπέστειλεν Ἰησοῦς τὸν λαόν … ἕκαστος εἰς τὴν κληρονομίαν αὐτοῦ
• Transliteration: va-yishlach Yehoshua et-ha’am … ish le-nachalato (Heb.); apesteilen Iēsous ton laon … hekastos eis tēn klēronomian autou (LXX)
• Literal meaning: “Joshua sent away the people … each man to his inheritance/portion.”
• Semantic range: nachalah = allotted hereditary land-portion; carries covenantal weight (land given by God’s promise, not mere real estate).
• English variants: “inheritance,” “portion,” “possession.”
• Contextual theological meaning: Sets the baseline of covenant order under Joshua — each tribe/family in its God-given place, the generation that had witnessed the conquest still faithful. This is the “before” state against which the coming decline is measured.
• Destination-language rendering risk: Low. Hmong has a strong existing lineage/land-inheritance concept (qub txeeg qub teg, cf. baseline heir entry, “tus qub txeeg qub teg”). Recommend “nws thaj av qub txeeg qub teg” (his inherited ancestral land) to carry the covenantal land-gift sense without collision.

Judges 2:7

• Original (Hebrew): וַיַּעַבְד֣וּ הָעָם֘ אֶת־יְהוָה֒ … אֵ֣ת כָּל־הַמַּעֲשֶׂ֤ה הַגָּדוֹל֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשָׂ֣ה יְהוָ֗ה לְיִשְׂרָאֵֽל
• LXX Greek: καὶ ἐδούλευσεν ὁ λαὸς τῷ κυρίῳ … τὸ ἔργον τὸ μέγα ὃ ἐποίησεν κύριος τῷ Ἰσραήλ
• Transliteration: va-ya’avdu ha-am et-YHWH (Heb.); edouleusen ho laos tō kyriō (LXX)
• Literal meaning: “the people served/worked for the LORD … the great work/deed that the LORD did for Israel.”
• Semantic range: avad = to serve, work, labor, worship, be enslaved to; the same root underlies eved (“servant/slave”). LXX renders with douleuō, the verb-form of doulos.
• English variants: “served,” “worshiped,” “were subject to.”
• Contextual theological meaning: Faithful covenant service/worship of YHWH alone — the positive counterpart to v.11’s “served the Baals.” The same Hebrew (and Greek) verb is used for both true and false worship, making the verb itself doctrinally neutral; the object determines faithfulness or apostasy.
• Destination-language rendering risk: High. Must reuse baseline worship_serve_cultic entry — “pehawm / pab teev” — with the object stated explicitly (“pehawm tus Tswv”), per the mandatory qualifier rule already fixed in the Romans TM/requirements. This verse is doctrinally important precisely because 2:11 uses the identical verb for Baal-worship; Hmong “pehawm” carries the same real-world ambiguity (used for both pehawm Vajtswv and pehawm dab), which actually mirrors the Hebrew’s own semantic flexibility — an unusually clean cross-linguistic match, but one that still requires the object-anchoring rule to avoid ambiguity.

Judges 2:8

• Original (Hebrew): וַיָּ֛מָת יְהוֹשֻׁ֥עַ בִּן־נ֖וּן עֶ֣בֶד יְהוָ֑ה
• LXX Greek: καὶ ἐτελεύτησεν Ἰησοῦς υἱὸς Ναυη δοῦλος κυρίου
• Transliteration: eved YHWH (Heb.); doulos kyriou (LXX)
• Literal meaning: “Joshua son of Nun, servant/slave of the LORD, died.”
• Semantic range: eved YHWH is an honorific covenant title (also given to Moses, David, the prophets) denoting total, devoted, divinely-commissioned service — not chattel bondage.
• English variants: “servant of the LORD,” “slave of the LORD” (more literal but rarely used in English translations for this honorific).
• Contextual theological meaning: Marks Joshua’s death as the death of faithful leadership — the hinge point after which the “generation that did not know the LORD” (v.10) arises.
• Destination-language rendering risk: High. Reuses baseline servant_slave_doulos entry — “qhev” — which the Romans package already flags as carrying strong residual chattel-slavery connotation in Hmong social memory. Here the honorific-title sense (not the total-surrender-bondservant sense Paul intends for himself) must be taught with an even lighter touch: render as “Yausua … uas ua qhev rau tus Tswv” with an explanatory note that this is Israel’s highest covenant-leadership title, not literal servitude — otherwise Hmong hearers may wonder why Joshua’s greatest honor is called “slave.”

Judges 2:9

• Original (Hebrew): בִּגְב֤וּל נַֽחֲלָתוֹ֙
• Transliteration: bi-gvul nachalato
• Literal meaning: “in the border/territory of his inheritance.”
• Semantic range: gvul = border, territory limit.
• English variants: “territory,” “border,” “land.”
• Contextual theological meaning: Minor geographic/burial notice; reinforces the covenant-land theme of v.6.
• Destination-language rendering risk: Low. Descriptive; no collision.

Judges 2:10

• Original (Hebrew): וְגַם֙ כָּל־הַדּ֣וֹר הַה֗וּא נֶֶאֱסְפ֖וּ אֶל־אֲבוֹתָ֑יו וַיָּקָם֩ דּ֨וֹר אַחֵ֜ר אַֽחֲרֵיהֶ֗ם אֲשֶׁ֤ר לֹֽא־יָדְעוּ֙ אֶת־יְהוָ֔ה וְגַם֙ אֶת־הַֽמַּעֲשֶׂ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר עָשָׂ֖ה לְיִשְׂרָאֵֽל
• LXX Greek: οὐκ ἔγνωσαν τὸν κύριον
• Transliteration: lo yad’u et-YHWH (Heb.); ouk egnōsan ton kyrion (LXX)
• Literal meaning: “who did not know the LORD.”
• Semantic range: yada (“know”) in Hebrew covenant usage denotes intimate, relational, experiential knowledge (cf. covenant-marriage “knowing”), not mere factual awareness.
• English variants: “did not know,” “had no knowledge of,” “were unacquainted with.”
• Contextual theological meaning: This is the doctrinal hinge-verse of the entire book: covenant faithfulness is transmitted generationally through relational knowledge of YHWH’s saving acts, and its failure is the root cause of the entire cycle. This directly supports Doctrine 4 (Apostasy and Covenant Unfaithfulness).
• Destination-language rendering risk: High. A bare Hmong verb for “know” (paub) reads as simple factual/informational knowledge and would flatten this into “they hadn’t heard about the LORD” (a comprehension failure) rather than “they had no covenant relationship with the LORD” (a relational/spiritual failure). Recommend a fixed periphrasis: “tsis paub tus Tswv zoo li ib qho kev sib raug zoo” (did not know the LORD as a relationship) or, more concisely, pairing paub consistently with the relational-covenant frame established for faith_believe in the Romans baseline (kev ntseeg anchored to its object). New candidate TM entry: covenant_knowledge_of_god.

Judges 2:11

• Original (Hebrew): וַיַּעֲשׂ֧וּ בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל אֶת־הָרַ֖ע בְּעֵינֵ֣י יְהוָ֑ה וַיַּֽעַבְד֖וּ אֶת־הַבְּעָלִֽים
• LXX Greek: ἐποίησαν οἱ υἱοὶ Ἰσραὴλ τὸ πονηρὸν ἐνώπιον κυρίου καὶ ἐλάτρευσαν τοῖς Βααλιμ
• Transliteration: ra (Heb., “evil”); ha-Ba’alim (Heb., “the Baals,” plural); to ponēron / elatreusan tois Baalim (LXX)
• Literal meaning: “did the evil in the eyes of the LORD, and served the Baals.”
• Semantic range: ra = evil, bad, morally wrong, harmful; Ba’al (sg.) literally “master/lord/owner,” the title of the Canaanite storm-and-fertility god, here plural (Ba’alim) denoting the many local Baal-shrines/manifestations.
• English variants: “evil,” “wickedness”; “the Baals,” “Baal-idols.”
• Contextual theological meaning: The book’s first occurrence of its recurring apostasy-formula (“did evil in the sight of the LORD… served [foreign gods]”), which structures every cycle (3:7, 3:12, 4:1, 6:1, 10:6, 13:1). LXX note: the Greek translator uses elatreusan — the very verb (latreuō) the Romans baseline already flags at High risk for worship_serve_cultic — confirming that “serving Baal” and “serving the LORD” (v.7) are the same act-category directed at different objects, which is the theological point Paul later makes explicit in Romans 1:25.
• Destination-language rendering risk: Critical. (1) “evil in the sight of the LORD” should reuse the Romans baseline pattern for unrighteousness/wrath_of_god framing — “tej kev phem uas tus Tswv pom” — kept distinct from mere social wrongdoing. (2) “Baal” requires a fixed transliteration decision, proposed here as “Npa-as” (candidate new TM entry baal_deity), explicitly taught as a false Canaanite fertility/storm-spirit — direct and unavoidable parallel to Hmong veneration of nature-spirits and field/mountain spirits (dab teb, dab toj roob). This is a genuine collision requiring explicit contrast-teaching, not merely a comprehension gap.

Judges 2:12

• Original (Hebrew): וַיַּֽעַזְב֞וּ אֶת־יְהוָ֣ה … וַיֵּֽלְכ֣וּ אַֽחֲרֵ֣י ׀ אֱלֹהִ֣ים אֲחֵרִ֔ים … וַיִּֽשְׁתַּֽחֲו֖וּ לָהֶ֑ם וַיַּכְעִ֥סוּ אֶת־יְהוָֽה
• Transliteration: azav (“forsook/abandoned”); elohim acherim (“other gods”); shachah (“bowed down”); ka’as (“provoked to anger”)
• Literal meaning: “they abandoned the LORD … and went after other gods … and bowed down to them, and provoked the LORD to anger.”
• Semantic range: azav = to leave, forsake, abandon, divorce (used elsewhere for marital abandonment — reinforcing the covenant-as-marriage metaphor); shachah = to bow, prostrate, do homage/worship; ka’as = to vex, provoke, irritate to anger.
• English variants: “forsook,” “abandoned,” “left”; “bowed down,” “worshiped,” “did homage”; “provoked to anger,” “angered,” “vexed.”
• Contextual theological meaning: Core statement of covenant unfaithfulness (Doctrine 4) and the direct cause of divine wrath (Doctrine 1, feeding into v.14). The marital-abandonment undertone of azav anticipates the explicit harlotry metaphor in v.17.
• Destination-language rendering risk: Critical. New candidate TM entry forsake_abandon_god — “tso Vajtswv tseg” (forsake/abandon God) — must be distinguished from merely “forgetting” (a comprehension failure) or “disobeying one occasion” (a minor lapse); it denotes decisive covenant desertion. “Provoked to anger” reuses the baseline wrath_of_god entry — “ua rau tus Tswv npau taws” — carrying forward the existing High-risk caution that Hmong “npau taws” defaults to capricious, appeasable spirit-anger unless explicitly taught as righteous, covenant-based judicial anger.

Judges 2:13

• Original (Hebrew): וַיַּֽעַזְב֖וּ אֶת־יְהוָ֑ה וַיַּֽעַבְד֥וּ לַבַּ֖עַל וְלָֽעַשְׁתָּרֽוֹת
• Transliteration: la-Ba’al ve-la-Ashtarot
• Literal meaning: “they forsook the LORD and served Baal and the Ashtaroth.”
• Semantic range: Ashtarot (plural of Ashtoret/Astarte) = Canaanite fertility/war goddess, consort figure to Baal.
• English variants: “the Ashtaroth,” “Astarte,” “Asherah” (English translations sometimes conflate Ashtoret with the related but distinct Asherah cult-symbol).
• Contextual theological meaning: Confirms the apostasy is comprehensive — both male and female deity-cults of the surrounding nations are embraced, not an isolated lapse.
• Destination-language rendering risk: High. New candidate TM entry ashtaroth_deity — proposed transliteration “cov Atalauj”. Direct parallel to Hmong veneration of female ancestral/household spirits; requires the same explicit-contrast teaching strategy as Baal (§2:11).

Judges 2:14

• Original (Hebrew): וַיִּֽחַר־אַ֤ף יְהוָה֙ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וַֽיִּתְּנֵם֙ בְּיַד־שֹׁסִ֔ים … וַֽיִּמְכְּרֵם֙ בְּיַ֣ד אֹֽיְבֵיהֶ֔ם
• Transliteration: charah aph (“anger burned”); natan be-yad (“gave into the hand of”); makar (“sold”)
• Literal meaning: “the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he gave them into the hand of plunderers … and sold them into the hand of their enemies.”
• Semantic range: charah = to burn, be kindled (of anger); makar = to sell, hand over for a price — striking economic metaphor for judgment.
• English variants: “burned,” “was kindled”; “gave,” “handed over,” “delivered”; “sold,” “handed over.”
• Contextual theological meaning: The judgment phase of the cycle (Doctrine 1): divine wrath is not abstract but concretely enacted through historical military defeat and foreign oppression. “Sold” implies Israel’s covenant unfaithfulness has a real, quantifiable cost.
• Destination-language rendering risk: High. Reuses baseline wrath_of_god — “kev npau taws ntawm tus Tswv” — now intensified with “burned” (“cig cig” / “kindled fiercely”). “Gave into the hand of” and “sold” should use a consistent idiom, e.g. “muab lawv cob rau” (hand them over to), avoiding any verb suggesting God auctioned Israel as chattel in an ordinary commercial sense — a footnote clarifying the metaphorical, judicial nature of “selling” is recommended.

Judges 2:15

• Original (Hebrew): כַּֿאֲשֶׁר֙ נִשְׁבַּ֤ע יְהוָ֣ה לָהֶ֑ם
• Transliteration: nishba (“had sworn”)
• Literal meaning: “as the LORD had sworn to them.”
• Semantic range: shaba = to swear an oath, bind oneself by solemn declaration — the verb underlying berith (covenant) oath-language throughout the Pentateuch (e.g., Deut. 28).
• English variants: “had warned,” “had sworn,” “had declared under oath.”
• Contextual theological meaning: The judgment Israel experiences is not arbitrary but the fulfillment of covenant-curse language Israel had already agreed to (cf. Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 28) — divine justice operating within a prior, mutually-entered covenant.
• Destination-language rendering risk: Medium. New candidate TM entry oath_swear — “cog lus twv” (to swear a solemn oath). Must be distinguished from casual promise-making; carries real cultural resonance with Hmong oath-taking customs (e.g., blood-oath alliances), which is a useful bridge but needs a note that God’s oath is self-binding and unbreakable, unlike oaths enforceable only through mutual threat.

Judges 2:16

• Original (Hebrew): וַיָּ֥קֶם יְהוָ֖ה שֹֽׁפְטִ֑ים וַֽיּוֹשִׁיעֻ֔ם מִיַּ֖ד שֹׁסֵיהֶֽם
• LXX Greek: καὶ ἤγειρεν κύριος κριτάς καὶ ἔσωσεν αὐτούς
• Transliteration: shophet (“judge,” Heb.); krites (LXX); yasha (“save/deliver,” Heb.); esōsen (LXX)
• Literal meaning: “the LORD raised up judges, and they saved them from the hand of those who plundered them.”
• Semantic range: shophet = one who judges, adjudicates disputes, but in Judges also functions as a charismatic military-deliverer and temporary tribal leader — a broader office than a modern courtroom “judge.” yasha = to save, deliver, rescue, give victory; the noun form yeshua/moshia (“salvation”/“savior”) underlies the name “Joshua” and (via Greek Iēsous) “Jesus.”
• English variants: “judges” (also “chieftains,” “deliverers” in some translations); “saved,” “delivered,” “rescued,” “gave victory.”
• Contextual theological meaning: Introduces the office central to the whole book and to Doctrine 5 (The Spirit’s Empowering of Judges) and Doctrine 3 (God’s Grace through Flawed Deliverers): God’s response to judgment is not abandonment but the sovereign raising-up of a rescuer, entirely by grace and without any merit-based qualification on Israel’s part.
• Destination-language rendering risk: Critical. (1) “Judge” needs a new candidate TM entry judge_shophet — proposed “tus Txiav Txim” — with a mandatory teaching note explaining the dual judicial-and-military-deliverer sense, since ordinary Hmong village dispute-adjudication (tu plaub) carries no military-leadership connotation. (2) “Saved/delivered” reuses baseline salvation_save — “kev cawm dim / cawm” — which the Romans package already flags High-risk for its “escape” (dim) collision with shamanic soul-rescue ritual (ua neeb). Here the collision risk is structurally identical to the Romans-package caution but must additionally be taught as physical/military deliverance, not eternal salvation — a distinction requiring an explicit teaching note to prevent conflating the judges’ temporary rescues with the gospel’s once-for-all salvation.

Judges 2:17

• Original (Hebrew): וְגַ֤ם אֶל־שֹֽׁפְטֵיהֶם֙ לֹ֣א שָׁמֵ֑עוּ כִּ֥י זָנ֞וּ אַֽחֲרֵי֙ אֱלֹהִ֣ים אֲחֵרִ֔ים
• Transliteration: shama (“listened/obeyed”); zanah (“played the harlot”)
• Literal meaning: “yet to their judges they did not listen, for they whored after other gods.”
• Semantic range: shama = to hear, listen, obey (the same root underlies “obedience of faith” concepts); zanah = to commit fornication/prostitute oneself, used figuratively throughout the Prophets (esp. Hosea, Ezekiel 16, 23) for Israel’s covenant infidelity to YHWH pictured as a marriage.
• English variants: “did not listen/obey”; “played the harlot,” “prostituted themselves,” “were unfaithful,” “went whoring.”
• Contextual theological meaning: This is the single most vivid image in the passage for Doctrine 4 (Apostasy and Covenant Unfaithfulness) — Israel’s relationship to YHWH is covenantal-marital, and idolatry is not merely rule-breaking but marital betrayal. It also anticipates every subsequent apostasy-cycle in the book.
• Destination-language rendering risk: Critical. New candidate TM entry spiritual_harlotry_apostasy — proposed “ua dev nkauj rau luag tej dab” (to prostitute oneself to other spirits) or a more formally-registered periphrasis such as “tsis ncaj rau tus Tswv, mus nrog luag tej dab sib deev”. This is a Critical-risk term for two converging reasons: (a) the sexual-explicitness of the metaphor sits uneasily against the formal, reverent register mandated for this Language Package, requiring careful, dignified phrasing that does not sanitize the force of the accusation; and (b) unless clearly marked as metaphor for covenant infidelity, Hmong hearers may read it as a literal accusation of temple prostitution rather than the theological point (that idol-worship is relational betrayal of a covenant Husband). Mandatory teaching note required at every occurrence.

Judges 2:18

• Original (Hebrew): נִחַ֣ם יְהוָ֗ה מִנַּֿאֲקָתָם֩ מִפְּנֵ֨י לֹֽחֲצֵיהֶ֜ם וְדֹֽחֲקֵיהֶֽם
• Transliteration: nacham (“was moved to pity / relented”); na’aqah (“groaning”)
• Literal meaning: “the LORD was moved to pity because of their groaning on account of those who oppressed and afflicted them.”
• Semantic range: nacham = to be sorry, console oneself, relent, be moved to compassion — a rich verb also used for God “relenting” from judgment (e.g., Jonah 3:10) and for human grief/comfort; na’aqah = groaning, crying out under distress (cf. Exodus 2:24, Israel’s groaning under Egyptian slavery).
• English variants: “was moved to pity,” “had compassion,” “relented,” “was grieved for.”
• Contextual theological meaning: The engine of grace within the cycle (Doctrine 3): God’s rescue is triggered not by Israel’s repentance but by his own compassion in response to their suffering — underscoring that deliverance through the judges is unmerited grace, not a reward for genuine repentance (which the book largely does not depict — see v.19’s immediate relapse).
• Destination-language rendering risk: Medium. Reuses baseline mercy entry — “txoj kev khuv leej” — already correctly kept lexically distinct from grace/txiaj ntsim per the Romans TM note. This is a strong, clean reuse: God’s nacham here is compassion toward the miserable (mercy), not unmerited favor toward the guilty (grace) — precisely the distinction the baseline TM entry preserves. “Groaning” — new candidate entry groaning_distress — “lub suab quaj ntsuag” (cry of anguish/distress).

Judges 2:19

• Original (Hebrew): וְשָׁ֗בוּ וְהִשְׂחִ֜יתוּ מֵֽאֲבוֹתָ֗ם … לֹ֤א הִפִּ֨ילוּ֩ מִמַּֽעַלְלֵיהֶ֨ם וּמִדַּרְכָּ֥ם הַקָּשָֽׁה
• Transliteration: shuv (“turned back”); shachath (“acted corruptly/were ruined”); qashah (“hard/stubborn”)
• Literal meaning: “they turned back and acted more corruptly than their fathers … they did not let fall any of their deeds or their stubborn way.”
• Semantic range: shachath = to ruin, corrupt, destroy, spoil (used of Noah’s generation in Gen. 6:11-12 — deliberate echo of comprehensive moral collapse); qashah = hard, stiff, stubborn, obstinate (root of “hardening”).
• English variants: “turned back,” “relapsed,” “reverted”; “acted corruptly,” “were more corrupt,” “did worse”; “stubborn,” “hard,” “obstinate.”
• Contextual theological meaning: The closing verse of the cycle-pattern and the darkest note: each generation does not merely repeat the pattern but worsens it (a spiral, not a static cycle), directly setting up the moral trajectory that will climax in the book’s final chapters (17-21) and the refrain “there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” This is the direct textual seed of Doctrine 6 (Moral Decline and the Need for a Righteous King).
• Destination-language rendering risk: High. “Acted corruptly” — new candidate entry moral_corruption_decline — “ua phem tas mus li, phem dua lawv tej niam tej txiv” (acted wickedly, worse than their fathers). “Stubborn ways” should reuse/extend the baseline hardening entry (“lub siab tawv” — “hardened liver/heart”) already established for Romans 11’s pōrōsis, since both denote settled, willful resistance to God — a helpful, doctrinally sound cross-book reuse, but the compounding, generational-worsening sense of shachath must be preserved with an explicit “worse than before” clause every time this refrain-pattern recurs (3:7ff., 4:1, 6:1, 8:33-34, 10:6, 13:1).

---

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

Chapter 1 — Incomplete Conquest

Judges 1 catalogs, tribe by tribe, Israel’s failure to fully drive out the Canaanite peoples from the land, establishing the structural precondition for every apostasy-cycle that follows (contact with unconquered peoples → intermarriage/idolatry, cf. 3:5-6).

• “drive out / dispossess” (Heb. yarash; LXX exolethreusai/klēronomēsai) — literal: “to take possession of by force, to dispossess.” Semantic range spans both “inherit” (positive, covenant-promise sense, cf. 2:6 above) and “dispossess/destroy” (negative, conquest sense) — the same root carries both the gift and the task of the land. Risk: Medium. Candidate entry drive_out_dispossess — “ntiab tawm / kav tau”. Comprehension-level: Hmong has no exact single-verb equivalent bridging “inherit” and “forcibly expel,” so the two senses may need distinct renderings depending on context, unlike the more unified Hebrew root.
• “the LORD was with Judah” (1:19) — a recurring divine-presence formula (cf. baseline in_christ_union_formula’s general principle that fixed formulas need consistent co-text). Risk: Low. Reuses general “presence of God” phrasing already stable in Hmong Christian usage; no new TM entry needed, but the formula should be rendered consistently as “tus Tswv nrog nraim” throughout the book wherever it recurs (1:19, 1:22, 6:12, etc.).
• “iron chariots” (1:19) — concrete military-technology detail explaining a conquest failure; no theological risk, comprehension gloss only if needed.

Chapter 2 — Supplementary Coverage (vv. 1-5, 20-23)

(Verses 6-19 received full verse-by-verse treatment in §1 above; this section covers the remaining verses of the chapter.)

• “the Angel of the LORD” (Heb. mal’akh YHWH; LXX angelos kyriou), vv. 1, 4 — literal: “messenger of the LORD.” Semantic range: in many OT theophany passages this figure speaks with the LORD’s own voice/authority in the first person (cf. Exodus 3:2-6, Judges 6:11-24), generating a long theological discussion (pre-incarnate Christophany vs. created angelic messenger). Risk: High. New candidate TM entry angel_of_the_lord — proposed “tus Tim Tswv ntawm tus Tswv” (the Messenger/Angel of the LORD). Collision risk: Hmong traditional religion features spirit-messengers and ancestral-spirit intermediaries (dab qhua, guardian/household spirits who deliver messages or omens); an unqualified rendering of “angel” risks assimilation into this category. Must be taught as a holy, obedient messenger sent from the one true God, categorically distinct from ancestral/animistic spirit-messengers, with the Christophany question flagged [TRANSLATOR REVIEW NEEDED: theological identity of the Angel of the LORD] for human theologian review rather than resolved unilaterally in curriculum text.
• “covenant” (Heb. berith; LXX diathēkē), v. 1-2 (“I will never break my covenant with you… you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land”) — literal: a solemn, binding agreement/treaty, often sealed by sacrifice or oath. Risk: High. New candidate TM entry covenant_berith — proposed “kev cog lus (ntawm Vajtswv)”, deliberately built on the existing baseline root lus cog tseg (promise) but marked as the fuller, bilateral covenant-relationship concept, kept distinct from the unilateral divine promise entry. Collision note: Hmong customary alliance-oaths (sometimes sealed with blood or animal sacrifice between clans) provide a genuinely useful comprehension bridge, but risk implying that God’s covenant is a negotiated pact of equals rather than a sovereign, gracious, self-initiated relationship — requires a teaching note paralleling the Romans baseline’s grace/covenant distinction.
• “altars … Asherim” (v. 2) — reuses idol-object vocabulary developed further in chapters 6 and 17 below.
• “tested” (Heb. nasah), v. 22 — “so that by them I may test Israel” — Risk: Medium. Candidate entry test_try_god; must be distinguished from temptation to sin (which God does not do) — testing here is God’s proving/refining discipline, a comprehension nuance rather than a collision.

Chapter 3 — Othniel, Ehud, Shamgar; the Cycle Begins in Narrative Form

• “the Spirit of the LORD came upon him” (Heb. ruach YHWH; LXX pneuma kyriou), 3:10 — literal: “the breath/spirit of the LORD was upon him.” Risk: Critical. Reuses baseline holy_spirit entry — “Vaj Ntsuj Plig” — mandatory “Vaj” prefix retained without exception, per the Romans TM rule. New doctrinal nuance requiring an explicit teaching note (feeds Doctrine 5): in Judges, the Spirit’s coming upon a judge is depicted as an episodic, task-specific empowering for a particular deliverance (military leadership), not the permanent NT indwelling-and-sealing reality Paul describes in Romans 8. Curriculum content must not imply that today’s believers experience the Spirit only temporarily the way Samson or Othniel did (cf. 16:20 below) — this is a comprehension/doctrinal-development distinction, not a collision with animism, but it is doctrinally load-bearing and must be flagged for human theologian review whenever taught.
• “the land had rest” (Heb. shaqat), 3:11, recurring — Risk: Low. Candidate entry land_rest — “thaj av tau so”.
• “cried out to the LORD” (Heb. tsa’aq/za’aq), 3:9, 3:15, and recurring throughout the book — literal: “cried out, called for help under distress.” Risk: High. New candidate TM entry cry_out_distress — “quaj thov tus Tswv”. Collision risk: this cry is a response to suffering, not necessarily genuine repentance (cf. 2:18 above, where God’s rescue is triggered by compassion for their groaning, not confessed repentance) — must be taught with a careful distinction from the Hmong shamanic practice of ritually calling on ancestral/household spirits for relief from misfortune (thov dab, hu plig). The verb itself is unavoidable (it is the ordinary word for a desperate cry for help), but the object (the LORD alone) and the lack of automatic ritual efficacy (it is God’s sovereign compassion, not the cry’s technique, that saves) must be made explicit — directly parallel to the baseline’s caution about kev cawm dim.
• “deliverer” (Heb. moshia), 3:9, 3:15 — the personal noun-form of yasha (see 2:16 above) applied to a specific individual (Othniel, Ehud). Risk: High. Reuses/extends baseline salvation_save root — render as “tus cawm” (the one who delivers/saves), consistently distinguished in teaching from the ultimate Tus Cawmseej (Savior) title reserved for Christ in the wider Hmong Christian tradition, to avoid implying the judges are saviors in the soteriological sense.

Chapters 4-5 — Deborah, Barak, Jael; the Song of Deborah

• “prophetess” (Heb. nevi’ah), 4:4 — Risk: Medium. New candidate entry prophetess — “tus poj niam cev Vajtswv lus” (the woman who speaks God’s word). Comprehension gap (unfamiliar office for women in Hmong customary religious/social structure) rather than a collision; should note this is the same office-family as male prophets, not a distinct or lesser category.
• “sold them into the hand of Jabin” (Heb. makar), 4:2 — reuses the judgment-idiom already flagged in 2:14 above.
• “cursed be…” (Meroz) (Heb. arar), 5:23 — Risk: Medium. Candidate entry curse_arar, distinct from blessing vocabulary; comprehension-level, parallels covenant-curse language from 2:15/2:20-23.
• No new Spirit-empowerment language in these chapters (the Spirit is not explicitly mentioned upon Deborah or Barak in the text), which is itself worth noting in teaching as textually significant — the victory here is attributed more directly to the LORD’s direct intervention (5:20, “the stars fought”) than to an explicit ruach YHWH formula.

Chapters 6-8 — Gideon

• “the Spirit of the LORD clothed Gideon” (Heb. labash + ruach YHWH), 6:34 — literal: “the Spirit of the LORD clothed itself with Gideon” (an unusually vivid variant of the formula, imagery of the Spirit “wearing” the judge as an instrument). Risk: Critical. Same handling as 3:10 above (holy_spirit — “Vaj Ntsuj Plig”); the “clothed” imagery should be preserved as a distinct, vivid variant rather than flattened to the more generic “came upon,” since it uniquely pictures the judge as the Spirit’s garment/instrument — worth a dedicated teaching note under Doctrine 5.
• “Jerubbaal” (Gideon’s alternate name, meaning “let Baal contend,” 6:32) — Risk: Medium. Proper name with embedded polemic against Baal (reuses baal_deity candidate entry from 2:11); should be transliterated consistently and glossed on first occurrence.
• “ephod” (Heb. ephod), 8:27 — Gideon melts the gold spoils into a cultic object that “all Israel whored after” (reuses zanah, §2:17 above), which “became a snare to Gideon and his family.” Risk: Critical. New candidate TM entry ephod_cultic_object — proposed transliteration “efauj” with explanatory gloss (“a priestly/oracle garment or object misused as an idol”). This is a striking case of a flawed deliverer (Doctrine 3) himself becoming a source of apostasy (Doctrine 4) — the ephod episode must be taught carefully so that Gideon’s earlier faithful obedience (destroying his father’s Baal altar, 6:25-32) is not confused with this later lapse; reuses the zanah harlotry-metaphor entry established in 2:17.
• “fleece” sign, “300 men,” “trumpets and jars” — narrative/military detail, no new theological vocabulary requiring a TM entry.

Chapter 9 — Abimelech and the Fable of the Trees

• “king” (Heb. melek), throughout — literal: “king, monarch.” Risk: Medium. New candidate TM entry king_melek — proposed “vaj ntxwv”, built on the same root morpheme already present in the baseline’s kingdom_of_god entry (lub Nceeg Vaj). This chapter’s fable — the trees seeking a king and settling for the worthless, self-serving bramble (Abimelech) — is the book’s clearest narrative commentary on Doctrine 2 (The Absence of a Righteous King) and Doctrine 6 (Moral Decline and the Need for a Righteous King), and should be explicitly cross-referenced in teaching to the refrain phrase treated under Chapter 17 below.
• “God sent an evil spirit” (Heb. ruach ra’ah; lit. “spirit of evil/harm”), 9:23 — Risk: High. New candidate TM entry evil_spirit_ruach_raah — proposed “ib tug ntsuj phem” (an evil/harmful spirit), deliberately built without the “Vaj” prefix reserved exclusively for the Holy Spirit, and deliberately kept distinct from the generic idol-term dab to avoid implying this is a Baal-class deity. Collision risk requires careful handling in both directions: (a) Hmong animism readily accommodates the idea of harmful spirits sent to punish, which could either usefully illustrate or dangerously reinforce an independent-spirit-agency worldview; the teaching note must stress that this spirit acts only under God’s sovereign command as an instrument of judgment between two wicked human parties, not as an autonomous animistic force to be feared, placated, or manipulated.

Chapter 10 — Tola, Jair; Renewed Apostasy Formula

• “served the Baals and the Ashtaroth, the gods of Syria… Sidon… Moab… Ammon… the Philistines” (10:6) — an expanded list of foreign deities. Risk: High. Reuses baal_deity and ashtaroth_deity candidate entries; the surrounding nations’ gods should each receive a consistent transliterated proper-noun treatment (e.g., “cov Vajtswv ntawm Xilias, Xidoos, Mau-am, Amoos, thiab Filixatee”) rather than being collapsed into a generic “idols,” to preserve the text’s point that Israel’s apostasy is comprehensively syncretistic, not a single lapse.
• “his soul was grieved/impatient” (Heb. qatsar nephesh, lit. “his soul was shortened”), 10:16 — literal: “the LORD could no longer bear/endure.” Risk: Medium. New candidate entry god_grieved_impatient — “tus Tswv siab tsis taus lawm rau” (the LORD’s heart could no longer bear); should be taught alongside the mercy entry (2:18 above) as another facet of God’s relational responsiveness to Israel’s suffering — comprehension-level nuance, not a collision.

Chapter 11 — Jephthah’s Vow

• “vow” (Heb. neder), 11:30-31, 39 — literal: “a solemn, binding pledge made to God,” here tragically fulfilled through human sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter. Risk: Critical. New candidate TM entry rash_vow_neder — proposed “lus cog tseg (rau Vajtswv)”, built on the same root as the Romans baseline promise entry but explicitly marked as a human-initiated, binding, and here disastrously ill-considered pledge, in deliberate contrast to God’s own unbreakable epangelia-promise. Collision risk is severe and specific: Hmong customary religion includes binding ritual vows made to spirits/ancestors that are believed to require literal fulfillment regardless of consequence (including, in extreme historical cases, costly sacrifice); this narrative could be misread as validating the principle that any vow to a deity must be kept no matter how destructive, rather than as a cautionary account of human rashness that Scripture itself does not present as commendable. Mandatory teaching note and [TRANSLATOR REVIEW NEEDED: does not commend Jephthah's vow as a model] flag required wherever this passage is taught.
• “the Spirit of the LORD was upon Jephthah” (11:29) — reuses holy_spirit (Critical, per 3:10/6:34 above); notably precedes his tragic vow, requiring careful teaching that Spirit-empowerment for a specific deliverance task does not guarantee the wisdom of every subsequent decision the empowered judge makes — reinforcing Doctrine 3 (God’s Grace through Flawed Deliverers).

Chapter 12 — Minor Judges (Ibzan, Elon, Abdon)

Reviewed: this chapter introduces no new load-bearing theological vocabulary. It reuses the established judge/deliverance formula (judge_shophet, salvation_save) and the tribal-conflict language already covered in Chapters 4-5 (the Jephthah-Ephraim conflict at the start of the chapter reuses no new terms beyond ordinary military/tribal vocabulary already logged).

Chapters 13-16 — Samson

• “Nazirite” (Heb. nazir), 13:5, 7 — literal: “one separated/consecrated,” from nazar (“to separate, dedicate, abstain”). Risk: Medium-High. New candidate TM entry nazirite_vow — proposed “tus raug cais tseg rau tus Tswv” (one set apart/consecrated for the LORD). Comprehension gap: no exact Hmong customary analogue for a lifelong ritual-abstention vow of this kind (no wine, no cutting hair, no contact with the dead) exists, though the general category of religious dedication/consecration is accessible. Risk elevated to High-adjacent because Samson’s arc (progressive, willful violation of every element of his vow, culminating in the cutting of his hair) becomes the narrative vehicle for the Spirit’s departure (see next entry) — the vow’s meaning must be taught clearly enough that its violation is understood as the direct cause of the ensuing catastrophe.
• “the Spirit of the LORD rushed upon him” (Heb. tsalach + ruach YHWH), 13:25, 14:6, 14:19, 15:14 — reuses holy_spirit (Critical); “rushed/came mightily” is a more forceful variant than “came upon” (3:10) and should be rendered with a stronger verb, e.g. “nqes rau saum nws ceev heev” (came down upon him swiftly/powerfully), while retaining the mandatory Vaj Ntsuj Plig collocation.
• “the LORD had left him” (Heb. sar YHWH me’alav, lit. “the LORD had turned aside from him”), 16:20 — Risk: Critical. This is the single most doctrinally sensitive Spirit-related verse in the book for Doctrine 5: it depicts the withdrawal of the Spirit’s empowering presence from Samson as a direct consequence of covenant unfaithfulness (violating the Nazirite vow, intimacy with Delilah). New candidate TM entry spirit_departure_ot — proposed “tus Tswv twb tso nws tseg lawm” (the LORD had already left/abandoned him), explicitly built on the same forsake_abandon_god root established at 2:12, deliberately signaling that this is the human-covenant-breaking side mirrored back — Samson forsook his vow, and consequently the Spirit’s empowering presence departed. Mandatory teaching note required distinguishing this OT episodic/conditional empowering-and-withdrawal pattern from the NT permanent indwelling and sealing of believers (cf. Romans 8:9-11’s baseline holy_spirit/in_christ_union_formula teaching) — this passage must never be used to teach that the Holy Spirit’s presence in NT believers is similarly revocable. Escalate to human theologian review whenever taught.
• “Delilah,” “Philistines,” “Timnah,” etc. — proper nouns; transliterate consistently, no new theological-risk vocabulary beyond what is logged above.

Chapter 17 — Micah’s Idols; First Occurrence of the “No King” Refrain

• “graven image and metal image” (Heb. pesel and massekah), 17:3-4 — Risk: High. Reuses baseline idol entry — “dab mlom” — for both terms collectively; no need for a separate new entry, since dab mlom already correctly captures “carved/cast image venerated as/for a spirit,” which is precisely what Micah commissions.
• “ephod … household gods” (Heb. ephod and teraphim), 17:5 — Risk: Critical. Ephod reuses the candidate entry established at 8:27 above. “Teraphim” requires a new candidate TM entry teraphim_household_idols — proposed “dab mlom hauv tsev” (household idols), explicitly built on the baseline idol root with a locative qualifier. This is one of the most direct collision points in the entire book: household teraphim function in the narrative almost exactly as a Hmong household spirit-shrine or ancestral altar (xwm kab) does — a domestic locus of ritual protection/blessing distinct from, and often supplementary to, formal communal worship. This parallel is too close to leave untaught; curriculum content must explicitly frame Micah’s household shrine as a direct violation of exclusive covenant worship, not as a harmless domestic devotional supplement — the narrative itself (which ends catastrophically, 18:1-31) supports this framing.
• “priest” (Heb. kohen), 17:5, 10-13 — Micah hires a wandering Levite as “priest.” Risk: Medium. New candidate entry priest_kohen — “tus povthawj” (an already-attested Hmong Christian loan/compound for “priest” in wider Bible-translation usage) — comprehension-level; must be distinguished from the baseline’s priestly_minister entry (Romans’ leitourgos, “tus ua haujlwm pab Vajtswv”) since kohen denotes the formal, hereditary Levitical priestly office, a more concrete and specific referent than Paul’s metaphorical ministerial usage.
• “In those days there was no king in Israel, and everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Heb. ba-yamim ha-hem eyn melek be-Yisrael, ish ha-yashar be-eynav ya’aseh), 17:6 — THE CENTRAL REFRAIN PHRASE OF THE BOOK, recurring in full or partial form at 17:6, 18:1 (no-king clause only), 19:1 (no-king clause only), and in full at 21:25 (closing verse of the entire book). Literal: “each man did the straight/right thing in his own eyes.” Yashar = straight, right, upright (the same conceptual root-family as dikaios/ncaj ncees in the Romans baseline, though a different Hebrew lexeme); ayin = eye, here idiomatic for personal judgment/perspective. Risk: Critical. New candidate TM entry moral_relativism_refrain — proposed fixed rendering “txhua tus ua raws li nws pom zoo rau nws tus kheej” (everyone acted according to what seemed good/right to himself), to be reproduced character-for-character identically at every occurrence (17:6, 18:1 partial, 19:1 partial, 21:25 full), exactly parallel to the Romans TM’s treatment of other fixed doctrinal collocations. This phrase is the direct scriptural anchor for Doctrine 2 (The Absence of a Righteous King) and Doctrine 6 (Moral Decline and the Need for a Righteous King), and must be explicitly, consistently contrasted in teaching with the baseline’s righteousness_of_god_righteous entry (“Vajtswv txoj kev ncaj ncees”) — the book’s tragic refrain is the photographic negative of Romans’ gospel resolution: where everyone judges by his own eyes, true righteousness must instead be reckoned by God.

Chapter 18 — The Danite Migration and Idol Theft

• Reuses teraphim_household_idols, ephod_cultic_object, priest_kohen, and idol/dab mlom entries established above (the Danites steal Micah’s entire shrine, priest included) — no new theological vocabulary beyond what is already logged, but a rich narrative illustration of Doctrine 4 (an entire tribe institutionalizing stolen household idolatry, 18:30-31 noting the shrine persisted “as long as the house of God was at Shiloh”).
• “In those days there was no king in Israel” (18:1, partial refrain, no-king clause only, without the “everyone did what was right” clause) — reuses moral_relativism_refrain root; teaching note should observe that this partial form still functions as a structural marker even without the full phrase.

Chapter 19 — The Levite, His Concubine, and the Outrage at Gibeah

• “concubine” (Heb. pilegesh), 19:1-2 — literal: “a secondary wife of lesser legal status.” Risk: Medium. New candidate entry concubine_pilegesh — “tus poj hluas” or “tus niam yau” (a secondary/lesser wife); comprehension gap given differing marriage-status customs, not a collision, but should be handled with care given the surrounding narrative’s extreme violence against her.
• “In those days there was no king in Israel” (19:1, partial refrain) — reuses moral_relativism_refrain root.
• This chapter’s atrocity (echoing Genesis 19’s Sodom narrative in its structure) represents the book’s moral nadir and is the primary narrative anchor for Doctrine 6 (Moral Decline and the Need for a Righteous King); no new theological-vocabulary TM entries are required beyond the doctrinal framing itself, which should be handled entirely through teaching notes rather than lexical choices — the narrative’s horror is the argument, and Phase 2 content must not soften or euphemize the text’s own candor about the depth of Israel’s moral collapse.

Chapter 20 — Civil War Against Benjamin

• “inquired of God” (Heb. sha’al be-Elohim), 20:18, 23, 27 — literal: “asked/consulted God” via the Ark/priestly oracle at Bethel. Risk: High. New candidate TM entry inquire_of_god — proposed “thov Vajtswv qhia” (ask God to reveal/show). Collision risk: this legitimate covenant practice of seeking divine guidance through God’s appointed means (priest, Ark, Urim/Thummim) sits close to Hmong shamanic divination practice (txiv neeb consulting spirits for guidance, omens, diagnosis) and must be explicitly distinguished — legitimate inquiry of the one true God through his appointed means, versus illegitimate spirit-divination — with a teaching note, not a lexical fix, since the underlying human need (seeking guidance in crisis) is genuinely shared across both systems.
• “the assembly,” “man of Israel” (collective tribal-military vocabulary) — no new theological risk beyond ordinary corporate/tribal terminology.

Chapter 21 — Wives for Benjamin; Closing Refrain

• “cursed be anyone who gives a wife to Benjamin” (21:18) — reuses oath_swear/curse vocabulary established at 2:15 and 5:23 above; illustrates the destructive, self-binding rigidity of rash communal oaths, paralleling Jephthah’s individual rash vow in Chapter 11 — both should be cross-referenced in teaching as cautions against treating oath-language as automatically righteous simply because it invokes God.
• “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (21:25) — the full, final occurrence of moral_relativism_refrain, closing the entire book. This is the single most important verse for teaching Doctrine 2 and Doctrine 6 as the book’s own explicit final verdict on itself, and should be taught in direct dialogue with the core passage’s refrain-pattern (2:6-19) as the destination toward which every unaddressed cycle of apostasy in the book has been heading: not a call for human monarchy per se, but a diagnosis of humanity’s need for a righteous king who will not himself become another flawed judge — a theological trajectory the wider canon resolves in the Davidic and ultimately messianic king.

---

3. Summary of New Candidate TM Entries Surfaced in This Analysis

The following terms have no precedent in the Romans baseline translation_memory.json and are proposed here as new entries for formal Judges-package TM adoption (see 08_core_glossary.md for the consolidated table): covenant_knowledge_of_god, covenant_berith, angel_of_the_lord, baal_deity, ashtaroth_deity, forsake_abandon_god, spiritual_harlotry_apostasy, judge_shophet, oath_swear, groaning_distress, moral_corruption_decline, drive_out_dispossess, test_try_god, land_rest, cry_out_distress, prophetess, curse_arar, ephod_cultic_object, king_melek, evil_spirit_ruach_raah, god_grieved_impatient, rash_vow_neder, nazirite_vow, spirit_departure_ot, teraphim_household_idols, priest_kohen, moral_relativism_refrain, concubine_pilegesh, inquire_of_god. All other terms in this analysis reuse Romans-baseline TM entries verbatim (god, lord, holy_spirit, sin_act_and_condition, idol, wrath_of_god, salvation_save, mercy, hardening, worship_serve_cultic, promise, heir, kingdom_of_god, nations_gentiles, servant_slave_doulos).