Linguistic Gap Analysis

Linguistic Gap Analysis: 1 Corinthians (English → Ndebele)

PRD Phase 1, Step 8. This analysis extends the baseline Romans Language Package’s linguistic-gap methodology to 1 Corinthians. It assumes and does not repeat the full term inventory already established in analysis/08_core_glossary.md and assets/bible_term_registry.json; instead it analyzes why the available Ndebele vocabulary succeeds or strains for each doctrine, where genuine lexical gaps exist, where semantic neighborhoods are dangerously crowded with traditional-religion referents, and which transliteration/paraphrase choices carry the most consequence. Every chapter of 1 Corinthians (1–16) has been reviewed for this analysis; chapters contributing no new gap beyond the baseline pattern are noted explicitly in Section 6.

1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

Doctrine	Available Ndebele Term(s)	Weaknesses of Available Vocabulary	Recommended Strategy
The Resurrection of Christ and Believers	`ukuvuka kwabafileyo` (resurrection); `wabonakala` (appeared); `ukulala (ubuthongo bokufa)` (fallen asleep); `umzimba wemvelo / umzimba wakoMoya` (natural/spiritual body)	Ndebele has no native single term for a bodily, historical, once-for-all rising distinct from the culturally dominant post-mortem category of joining the amadlozi. `Ukuvuka` (to wake/rise) is otherwise a completely ordinary verb (waking from sleep); without the qualifying phrase `kwabafileyo` and consistent doctrinal reinforcement, hearers may default to an amadlozi frame for any death-related “rising” or “appearing” language. `Wabonakala` (“was seen/appeared”) is the everyday verb used of amadlozi appearing to descendants in dreams.	Retain baseline compound `ukuvuka kwabafileyo` without abbreviation in every occurrence throughout ch.15. Reinforce every instance of `wabonakala` (15:5-8) with explicit surrounding language of bodily, waking, group-verified sight (“kwababonayo bebonke ngamehlo,” “kungelilo iphupho”) to fence off the dream-vision/amadlozi reading. Use `umzimba wemvelo / umzimba wakoMoya` consistently, never allowing “spiritual body” to be rendered in a way that could mean “became a spirit without a body.”
Christian Unity versus Factionalism	`ukudabuka / ukwehlukana` (division/faction); `-enyama (abenyama)` (fleshly/carnal); `isisekelo` (foundation)	Ndebele social identity is structured strongly around clan (`isibongo`) and lineage; the existing vocabulary for “division” (`ukudabuka`, “to split/tear,” `ukwehlukana`, “to separate”) is neutral and does not itself carry theological weight — it will not automatically flag why rallying around a personality/teacher (1:12) is sinful rather than simply a normal social loyalty pattern.	No new coinage needed, but every occurrence of `ukudabuka/ukwehlukana` in ch.1, 3, 11 must be doctrinally anchored by surrounding text to the sin of exalting a human leader/teacher above Christ, distinguishing it explicitly from ordinary and legitimate clan/family loyalty so the doctrine is not heard as an attack on clan identity itself.
The Cross as Wisdom and Power	`isiphambano` (cross); `ukuhlakanipha` (wisdom); `ubuwula` (foolishness); `amandla kaNkulunkulu` (power of God)	`Ukuhlakanipha` is the same word used for the wisdom of elders and, by extension, can shade toward the specialized insight attributed to `izinyanga`/`izangoma`. `Isiphambano` risks being received as a protective religious object/amulet rather than a historical shameful execution repurposed as saving truth — a live risk given widespread use of protective charms and objects in the broader culture.	Retain `isiphambano` but require narrative/historical framing (a real execution device, a real death) in every first exposure per chapter, not merely a doctrinal label. Pair `ukuhlakanipha` consistently with `kaNkulunkulu` (“God’s wisdom”) or with explicit contrast against `ukuhlakanipha kwabantu` (“human wisdom”) to prevent slippage toward ancestral/elder wisdom categories.
Church Discipline and Holiness	`-ngcwele` (holy); `ukungcweliswa` (sanctification); `ithempeli likaNkulunkulu` (temple of God); `ukunikelwa kuSathane` (hand over to Satan); `ukugezwa` (washed)	The temple concept collides with the physical existence of ancestral shrines and diviners’ consulting huts (`indumba`) as recognized dwelling/contact-points for spirits — structurally the same semantic slot Paul is using for the church/body. `Ukunikelwa kuSathane` risks being heard through the lens of witchcraft affliction (`ukuthakathwa`) or ancestral punishment for disrespect, a very live explanatory category for personal calamity in Ndebele communities.	Fence `ithempeli likaNkulunkulu` and `umzimba uyithempeli likaMoya oNgcwele` with explicit exclusive-indwelling language (“kuphela ngoMoya oNgcwele,” “not by any other spirit”) at every occurrence in ch.3 and ch.6. `Ukunikelwa kuSathane` (5:5) requires a mandatory theologian’s note on its restorative, church-disciplinary purpose distinguishing it from a curse mechanism every time the passage is taught — no exceptions.
Marriage and Singleness	`umtshado` (marriage); `intombi egcweleyo / ongatshadanga` (virgin/unmarried); `ubizo`/`obiziweyo` (calling/called, vocational sense)	No lexical gap for marriage itself, but Ndebele culture attaches strong social value to marriage and childbearing as markers of completed adult personhood and as necessary for lineage/ancestral continuity; there is no existing positive vocabulary slot for celibate singleness as a spiritually advantageous calling rather than a deficient or suspect state (often culturally read as a sign of ancestral displeasure or witchcraft).	No new term needed, but ch.7 requires sustained framing effort: pair `ongatshadanga` consistently with `ubizo`/`obiziweyo` (“a calling,” not a lack) to reframe singleness as intentional devotion, not deficiency. Flag ch.7 passages for native-speaker cultural sensitivity review given the weight of this collision.
Christian Liberty and Idol Meat	`isithombe` (idol); `ukudla okunikelwe ezithombeni` (food sacrificed to idols); `amadimoni/itafula lamadimoni` (demons/table of demons); `unembeza` (conscience)	This is the single largest gap-and-collision cluster in the letter (see Section 3 below). Ndebele has abundant, warmly regarded vocabulary for ritual meals, beer libations, and meat portions offered to `amadlozi` (e.g., at `umbuyiso` ceremonies) — a structurally parallel but culturally positive practice to what Paul warns against. There is no existing Ndebele term that cleanly separates “idol” (a false-god cult image, judged negatively) from “ancestral offering” (a family-honoring practice) without careful theological scaffolding.	Treat as a fenced cluster requiring dedicated doctrinal teaching (see Section 3), not merely a glossary substitution. `Isithombe` and `ukudla okunikelwe ezithombeni` must be taught with explicit historical/cultural anchoring to pagan temple cult objects and Greco-Roman sacrificial practice, while `amadimoni` must never be casually equated with `amadlozi` in the same breath. Mandatory theologian review, every occurrence, per baseline escalation convention already applied to `ukuncengela`.
The Lord’s Supper	`iSidlo seNkosi` (Lord’s Supper); `isikhumbuzo` (remembrance); `isivumelwano esitsha` (new covenant); `ukungahlukanisi umzimba` (discerning the body)	The existing vocabulary for shared ritual meals in Ndebele culture (`umsindo`, beer/meat shared at family or clan ceremonies including those honoring amadlozi) sits in the same semantic neighborhood as “a meal that commemorates and communes with a significant spiritual figure.” Without explicit fencing, `iSidlo seNkosi` risks being assimilated into this existing ritual-meal schema rather than understood as unique and unrepeatable in its theological referent (Christ’s one sacrifice).	Require explicit contrast teaching alongside every occurrence of `iSidlo seNkosi` in ch.11 distinguishing it from any ritual meal shared with or offered to a spirit-being other than the one true God, echoing the ch.10 “table of demons” contrast. `Isivumelwano esitsha` must always carry explicit reference to fulfillment of Old Testament promise, not a renewable ritual pact.
Spiritual Gifts and the Body of Christ	`izipho zoMoya` (spiritual gifts); `ukukhuluma ngezindimi` (tongues); `izipho zokusilisa` (gifts of healing); `ukuhlukanisa imimoya` (discerning of spirits); `umzimba kaKristu` (body of Christ)	This is the second major gap-and-collision cluster (see Section 3). Ndebele traditional religion has rich, prestigious, and socially significant vocabulary for spirit-possession phenomena (trance speech, healing by `izinyanga`, mediumship inherited within families) that occupies structurally the same experiential territory as tongues, healing gifts, and prophecy. There is no existing Ndebele phrase that inherently marks “this manifestation comes from the Holy Spirit for the church’s edification” as opposed to “this manifestation comes from an ancestral or divinatory spirit.”	Treat `ukukhuluma ngezindimi`, `izipho zokusilisa`, and `ukuhlukanisa imimoya` as a fenced cluster requiring the gift’s source (uMoya oNgcwele alone) and purpose (edification of the church, not personal power or fee-for-service divination) to be stated explicitly at every occurrence, not assumed from the term itself. Mandatory theologian review for `ukukhuluma ngezindimi` and high-priority flag for the healing/discernment terms.
Love as the Greater Way	`uthando` (love)	`Uthando` is a broad, everyday word covering romantic love, family affection, and general goodwill; it also sits near — though is distinguishable from — the reciprocal kinship-obligation logic (`ubuntu`-style mutual duty, expectation of repayment/favor) that structures much of Ndebele social and ancestral-relational life. Ch.13’s `agapē` requires a selfless, non-transactional, Christ-patterned sense that the bare word does not supply on its own.	Retain `uthando` (no viable alternative exists and coining a new word would isolate ch.13 from the rest of the church’s devotional vocabulary) but require ch.13 to be taught with sustained descriptive content (the “love is patient, love is kind…” catalogue itself does most of this work) rather than relying on the term alone to carry the doctrine. Flag as Critical per the term registry given how easily `uthando` can be read as transactional or reciprocal without this scaffolding.
Order in Worship	`ngokufanele langokuhlelekileyo` (decently and in order); `kabathule` (let them be silent); `inhloko` (head/headship); `ukumboza ikhanda` (head covering)	No major lexical gap for “order” itself. `Inhloko` intersects with existing household-headship (patriarchal, `induna`-style) and even the baseline’s flagged `iNkosi` (chieftaincy) sensitivities, risking a reading of domineering authority rather than the relational, self-giving pattern Paul describes rooted in the Trinity’s own ordered relations. `Ukumboza ikhanda` is a practice-question with no fixed cultural equivalent; imposing either first-century or unrelated Western dress assumptions onto Ndebele custom would misfire.	Fence `inhloko` with explicit reference to Christ’s own submission pattern (11:3, tying to 15:28’s Son-Father relation) to prevent a purely hierarchical/authoritarian reading. Treat `ukumboza ikhanda` as requiring native-speaker cultural consultation rather than a fixed doctrinal ruling; do not import unexamined foreign cultural assumptions.

2. Missing Vocabulary — Genuine Lexical Gaps

These are concepts for which no existing single Ndebele word carries the required sense, requiring compound phrases, established loanwords, or careful multi-word construction (already reflected in 08_core_glossary.md Section B; this section explains why each gap exists):

Justification-adjacent forensic categories carried over from Romans (ukulungisiswa, ukubalelwa ukulunga) recur only indirectly in 1 Corinthians (6:11’s three-part “washed, sanctified, justified” formula) but the same gap logic applies: Ndebele ukulunga naturally reads as moral/behavioral rightness, not credited legal status, so the compound convention from the baseline must be preserved without shortcut.
“Appeared” in a bodily-verification sense (wabonakala) has no dedicated vocabulary distinct from dream/vision appearance — this is a structural gap, not merely a risk, since Ndebele’s ordinary verb for “was seen” covers both.
“Untimely born” (ektrōma) has no single-word equivalent at all; the glossary’s periphrastic solution (njengomntwana ozelwe kungakabi yisikhathi sakhe) is a genuine gap-filling construction, not a term substitution, and will read awkwardly without a translator’s note preserving Paul’s tone of self-deprecating astonishment.
“Discerning the body” / “discerning of spirits” (ukungahlukanisi umzimba, ukuhlukanisa imimoya) require analytic compound verbs built from -hlukanisa (“to separate/distinguish”) because no noun exists for the specific cognitive-spiritual act Paul describes.
“Anathema” as a purely divine judicial verdict with no human ritual agent — Ndebele’s existing curse vocabulary (isiqalekiso) is otherwise always associated with a human or spiritual agent performing an act of cursing; the concept of a status pronounced by God alone, with no ritual mechanism, is a structural gap the term alone cannot close (see Section 4).
“Natural body / spiritual body” as two bodily states rather than “body” vs. “disembodied spirit” — Ndebele’s normal contrast for the afterlife is embodied-life vs. spirit-existence (amadlozi), not two kinds of body; the compound umzimba wemvelo / umzimba wakoMoya must be actively taught rather than assumed self-evident.

Conclusion: 1 Corinthians introduces no gap requiring wholesale rejection of the baseline’s compounding strategy; every genuine gap is closeable through the same descriptive-phrase method already modeled in Romans, but four of the six gaps above (#2, #3, #5, #6) will fail silently if delivered as bare vocabulary without accompanying explanatory framing — these should be treated as teaching gaps, not merely translation gaps.

3. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods Requiring Fencing

Unlike Romans, which concentrated its syncretism risk almost entirely on intercession/mediation, 1 Corinthians introduces two additional dense collision clusters alongside the baseline’s carried-over risk (God/amadlozi mediation, resurrection/amadlozi, prophet/isangoma). Each cluster below needs explicit boundary-setting (“fencing”) because the Ndebele lexical items sit in the same experiential and social territory as an existing, respected traditional practice.

Cluster A: Idols, Idol Meat, and the “Table of Demons” (chs. 8, 10)

Crowded neighborhood: ritual meals, meat portions, and beer libations offered to amadlozi at family/clan ceremonies (e.g., umbuyiso) are a positive, honored practice; Paul’s “idol,” “food sacrificed to idols,” and “table of demons” occupy adjacent conceptual space (food ritually associated with a spiritual being) but carry an entirely different theological verdict.
Fencing required: Teaching must (a) keep “idol” (isithombe) anchored to pagan cult images/false gods of the Greco-Roman world, not present-day ancestral practice by default; (b) never let “demons” (amadimoni) be casually glossed as “our ancestors” — that equation is neither Paul’s claim nor pastorally safe to introduce without deliberate, careful theological reflection beyond the scope of a glossary decision; (c) preserve Paul’s own nuance that the idol itself “is nothing” (8:4) while the spiritual reality behind organized idol-worship remains dangerous (10:20) — collapsing this into either “it’s all fine” or “it’s all identical to ancestor worship” both misrepresent the text.
Routing: Mandatory human theologian review, every occurrence, consistent with baseline ukuncengela precedent.

Cluster B: Spiritual Gifts, Tongues, and Healing (chs. 12, 14)

Crowded neighborhood: trance/ecstatic speech and spirit-mediated healing are prestigious, well-established roles (izangoma, izinyanga) with their own recognized vocabulary, transmission patterns (often inherited within a family line), and social legitimacy.
Fencing required: Every occurrence of ukukhuluma ngezindimi, izipho zokusilisa, ukwenza izimangaliso, and ukuhlukanisa imimoya must state or imply source (the Holy Spirit alone) and purpose (edification of the church, freely given, not inherited, not paid for, not a personal power base). The gift-list itself (12:8-10) is an opportunity to build this fence systematically once, then rely on it for chs. 12–14.
Routing: Mandatory theologian review for tongues; High-priority native-speaker + theologian review for healing/discernment gifts.

Cluster C (carried over, intensified): Resurrection/Afterlife vs. Amadlozi (ch. 15)

Already flagged Critical in the baseline for Romans; 1 Corinthians intensifies the risk by making it the curriculum’s core passage and by introducing wabonakala (“appeared”) and ukulala (“fallen asleep”), both of which are the ordinary Ndebele vocabulary for describing ancestral-spirit activity and death. This cluster now carries the single highest concentration of Critical-risk terms in the book (see Section 5).

Cluster D (new, narrower): Ritual Meals and the Lord’s Supper (chs. 10–11)

Distinct from but adjacent to Cluster A: even apart from idol meat specifically, the practice of a shared communal ritual meal with religious significance (beer, meat, shared cup) is itself a recognized ancestral-honoring form. iSidlo seNkosi must be fenced not only against idol-meat associations but against the general category of “ritual meal shared with a spiritual being,” full stop — the fence must specify Christ’s uniqueness and once-for-all sacrifice, not merely his difference from pagan gods.

Lower-intensity crowded neighborhoods (Medium risk, note only):

Wisdom/foolishness (ch. 1–2) vs. elder/ancestral wisdom and diviners’ insight.
Mystery (ch. 2) vs. occult hidden knowledge held by ritual specialists.
Marriage/singleness (ch. 7) vs. lineage-continuity expectations (noted in Section 1 above).
Headship (ch. 11) vs. household/chieftaincy authority patterns (noted in Section 1 above).

4. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions

Term	Decision	Rationale
uJesu, uKristu, uMesiya, uDavida, uIsrayeli	Transliterate (established forms)	Consistency with the baseline and with the wider Nguni Bible translation tradition; proper names carry no translatable semantic content requiring paraphrase.
Marana tha	Transliterate, untranslated	Follows the baseline’s own precedent for “Abba” — an early liturgical acclamation whose force is better preserved as a retained loan-phrase than rendered into an Ndebele imperative, which would lose its historic, cross-lingual liturgical character.
isiphambano (cross)	Paraphrase-compound, not transliterate	An imported Greek/Latin loanword (e.g., a transliterated “krosi”) would strip the term of any semantic content and risk being received as an arbitrary foreign object-name (compatible with amulet framing); the existing Nguni compound retains the concrete image of a cross-shaped execution instrument, which is doctrinally load-bearing here (a real, shameful death).
isithombe (idol)	Use existing native term, not transliteration of “idol”	A transliterated loanword would sound like a foreign technical term detached from lived experience; `isithombe` (image/picture/representation) already exists in the language and, combined with explicit theological framing, correctly signals “a crafted representation of a false god” without requiring the audience to learn a new foreign word. The risk this choice carries (closeness to ancestral-offering practice) is addressed through doctrinal fencing (Section 3), not through switching to transliteration.
amadimoni (demons)	Transliterate (loanword from established Bible tradition), retained as distinct from amadlozi	Ndebele/Nguni Bible tradition already uses a transliterated form for biblical “demons”; this is deliberately chosen not to reuse `amadlozi` (ancestral spirits), preserving Scripture’s own distinct category rather than assimilating it into the traditional cosmology. This is a paraphrase-avoidance decision: any attempt to translate “demons” using a native descriptive term risks accidentally describing amadlozi.
ukubhabhathizwa (baptize)	Transliterate (loanword), per established wider Bible tradition	No native Ndebele ritual-washing term can carry the sacramental, covenantal, once-for-all sense without importing purification-rite connotations; the established loanword avoids this collision entirely and is already the convention across Nguni Bible translation.
isiqalekiso (anathema)	Paraphrase using existing native term, heavily fenced — considered but rejected transliteration	A transliterated “anathema” would be opaque to readers; the native term for curse/judgment is intelligible but requires explicit fencing (Section 1, Church Discipline row) to exclude the human-ritual-curse mechanism (`ukuthakathwa`) that the native term normally implies. Transliteration was rejected because comprehension matters more here than risk-avoidance by obscurity — the concept (God’s judicial verdict) is teachable through explanation, whereas an opaque loanword would simply be misunderstood in a different, unpredictable way.
iSidlo seNkosi (Lord’s Supper)	Paraphrase (compound of established terms), not transliteration	Built entirely from already-established vocabulary (`iSidlo` = meal, `iNkosi` = Lord); this compositional transparency is an asset here, making the meal’s ownership (it is the Lord’s, not a generic communal or ancestral meal) linguistically explicit every time the phrase is used.
Abha / Marana tha	see above; both retained as untranslated transliterations consistent with baseline precedent.
ukukhuluma ngezindimi (tongues)	Paraphrase using descriptive compound, not transliteration or borrowing from divination vocabulary	Constructed transparently as “speaking in languages/tongues” to keep the gift’s form (intelligible or unintelligible speech) separate from any pre-existing native term for trance-utterance, which would import possession-framework assumptions the text does not support.

General principle guiding these decisions: transliteration is preferred where (a) an established Bible-translation precedent already exists (proper names, baptism, demons, Marana tha/Abba) or (b) any native paraphrase would inevitably borrow vocabulary from a competing traditional-religion frame; paraphrase/compounding is preferred where (a) the concept is genuinely composed of already-safe existing vocabulary (Lord’s Supper) or (b) transliteration would produce an opaque loanword that fails to teach anything and must be explained anyway (anathema), in which case a native term plus explicit fencing is more effective than an unintelligible borrowed word.

5. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities in 1 Corinthians

Ranked by combined severity (doctrinal centrality × likelihood of default misreading toward traditional religious categories):

“Table of demons” vs. amadlozi (10:20-21) — the single highest-risk ambiguity in the book. A careless rendering could either (a) imply Christians must reject honoring ancestors in exactly the same terms as rejecting pagan idol-cult, causing unnecessary family/social rupture and pastoral harm, or (b) soften Paul’s actual warning that spiritual realities are genuinely at stake in ritual meals offered to any being but God. Mandatory theologian review, every occurrence.
Resurrection appearances (“wabonakala,” 15:5-8) vs. amadlozi dream-appearances — the core passage’s central evidentiary claim (named, numbered, bodily, waking witnesses) uses the exact verb Ndebele speakers use for ancestral-spirit visitation. Without explicit fencing this could quietly convert Paul’s historical apologetic into something structurally indistinguishable from an amadlozi encounter narrative.
Idol meat and food offered to idols (8:1-13; 10:23-30) vs. ancestral food offerings — nearly as high as #1; the practical, everyday question (“can I eat this meat?”) maps onto lived Ndebele ritual practice (umbuyiso portions) more directly and more often than the “table of demons” language itself, making misapplication likely in ordinary pastoral teaching, not just formal doctrine.
Tongues and spiritual gifts (12:1-14:40) vs. spirit-possession/mediumship — high risk because this is not a single verse but an entire extended block of teaching regulating a living congregational practice; every worship service touching these chapters recreates the ambiguity anew.
“Hand over to Satan” (5:5) vs. witchcraft curse/ancestral affliction — narrower in scope (a single case) but Critical in severity, since a misreading could cause a congregation to interpret church discipline through an occult-affliction lens rather than as redemptive restoration.
“Temple of God” / body as the Spirit’s temple (3:16-17; 6:19) vs. ancestral shrine or diviner’s hut — pervasive across two chapters and foundational to the Church Discipline and Holiness doctrine; risk is chronic rather than acute (a background assumption more than a single flashpoint).
Headship (11:2-16) vs. domineering household/chieftaincy authority — moderate-high risk; less likely to produce outright syncretism but likely to produce a distorted application (authoritarianism) if the relational, Trinity-grounded framing is dropped.
Singleness as a calling (7:25-40) vs. cultural expectation of marriage/childbearing for lineage continuity — moderate risk; less a doctrinal corruption risk than a reception/application risk (the teaching being quietly ignored or resisted rather than misunderstood).
Wisdom/mystery (1:18-2:16) vs. elder wisdom and divinatory insight — moderate risk; primarily an emphasis problem (undervaluing the specific locus of “the cross” as God’s wisdom) rather than a full category collapse.
“Love” (13:1-13) vs. reciprocal kinship obligation — present but lower risk than the above because the extended descriptive catalogue in the passage itself does substantial fencing work; risk is that of thinning the concept over repeated informal use outside the immediate context of ch.13, not of acute misreading within it.

6. Full-Book Chapter Review Confirmation

All sixteen chapters of 1 Corinthians have been reviewed for this gap analysis. Chapters not separately discussed above introduced no gap or collision pattern beyond what is already covered:

Ch. 1–4 (factionalism, cross, wisdom, apostolic stewardship): covered in Sections 1 and 3 (Clusters A-adjacent wisdom risk).
Ch. 5–6 (discipline, lawsuits, sexual immorality, the body): covered in Section 1 (Church Discipline row) and Section 5 (#5, #6).
Ch. 7 (marriage and singleness): covered in Section 1 and Section 5 (#8).
Ch. 8–10 (idol meat, liberty, Israel’s example, the Lord’s table): covered in Sections 1, 3 (Cluster A, D), and Section 5 (#1, #3).
Ch. 11 (Lord’s Supper, headship, head covering): covered in Sections 1, 3 (Cluster D), and Section 5 (#7).
Ch. 12, 14 (spiritual gifts, tongues, order in worship): covered in Sections 1, 3 (Cluster B), and Section 5 (#4).
Ch. 13 (love): covered in Sections 1 and 5 (#10). No additional gap beyond the uthando analysis; reviewed and confirmed no other new vocabulary risk.
Ch. 15 (resurrection): covered extensively in Sections 1, 2, 3 (Cluster C), and Section 5 (#2) as the curriculum’s core doctrinal anchor.
Ch. 16 (collection, closing greetings, anathema, Maranatha): covered in Sections 2 and 4 (anathema, Maranatha transliteration decisions); collection and holy kiss reviewed and confirmed Low risk with no gap beyond the baseline pattern, consistent with 08_core_glossary.md.

No chapter was silently omitted from this analysis.

This document extends but does not override translation_memory.json, bible_term_registry.json, or doctrine_risk_registry.json from the baseline Romans Language Package, and is intended to be read alongside analysis/08_core_glossary.md and assets/bible_term_registry.json for this curriculum.

Library content is free and openly licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 — share and adapt it for non-commercial use, with attribution to tri-bible.ai.