Linguistic Gap Analysis
Linguistic Gap Analysis: Galatians (English–Pashto)
Purpose
This document executes Phase 1 Step 8 for the Galatians curriculum. It analyzes the destination-language (Pashto) vocabulary landscape against the fourteen doctrines specified for this curriculum, identifies genuine lexical gaps (concepts with no adequate native term) versus crowded semantic neighborhoods (concepts with too many competing, doctrinally dangerous native associations), states transliteration-versus-paraphrase decisions with reasoning, and ranks the letter’s highest-risk ambiguities for Phase 2 prioritization. It does not override any baseline or 08_core_glossary.md rendering; where a term is already fixed, this document explains why that choice was necessary and what fencing it still requires in this specific curriculum’s more law-and-identity-saturated context.
Galatians differs from Romans in degree, not kind, of risk: nearly every doctrine here (justification, law, circumcision, sonship, flesh/Spirit) is argued more polemically, more compactly, and against a narrower target (legalistic identity-markers) than in Romans’ more expansive treatment. This concentrates risk rather than diluting it.
1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix
For each of the fourteen curriculum doctrines: the available Pashto term(s), their specific weaknesses for this doctrine, and the recommended handling strategy. (Terms already fixed in translation memory are marked accordingly and reused verbatim.)
| # | Doctrine | Available Pashto Term(s) | Weaknesses | Recommended Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Justification by Faith | صداقت (sadaqat) / صادق ګڼل کیدل (sadiq ganal kedal) — [TM fixed] | Forensic “declared righteous” is a guilt-innocence category; Pashtun honor-shame culture intuits “restored honor” more readily than “acquitted verdict.” Risk of readers hearing sadaqat as “sincerity/honesty” (its common everyday sense) rather than a legal status. | Retain TM terms exactly; supplement every occurrence in Galatians 2:16-21, 3:6-11 with explicit honor-restoration bridging language per baseline instruction, but never let the honor-frame replace the forensic content — Paul’s argument in 2:16 is specifically a legal verdict, not a felt sense of honor. |
| 2 | The True Gospel versus False Gospels | انجیل (Injil) / بل انجیل (bal Injil) — [TM fixed; risk elevated to Critical for this curriculum] | Regional tahrif assumption predisposes hearers to imagine a “different gospel” as a plausible prior/truer revelation rather than a condemned counterfeit. | Never translate بل انجیل in a way that grants it referential legitimacy (avoid any construction suggesting “another version of the good news”); pair with the anathema warning (1:8-9) at first occurrence so the condemnation is unmistakable. |
| 3 | Paul’s Apostleship | رسول (rasul) + مکاشفه (mukashifa, apostolic revelation) — [TM fixed] | رسول collides with Muhammad’s defining title; مکاشفه collides with the wahy verbatim-dictation model. Compounding risk unique to Galatians: Paul’s claim to unmediated commissioning (1:1, 1:11-12) structurally mirrors the very finality-of-prophethood claim Islam makes for Muhammad. | Always pair رسول/مکاشفه occurrences with the counterbalancing fact that Paul still submitted his gospel for confirmation to the Jerusalem apostles (2:1-10) — frame as continuity-with-and-accountability-to prior revelation, not a rival unmediated claim replacing it. |
| 4 | Law and Grace | ناموس (namus) / فضل (fazal) — [TM fixed] | See §3.1 below — ناموس carries a second, extremely active colloquial Pashto sense (“family honor,” esp. female chastity) entirely absent from the Arabic/Persian sister-package risk notes; فضل still carries melmastia reciprocity risk. | Reuse both TM terms exactly, but add a mandatory disambiguating gloss (“د موسی ناموس” / “the Law of Moses”) at first occurrence in each lesson unit, since Galatians uses νόμος far more densely and centrally than Romans. |
| 5 | Crucified with Christ | صلیب (salib) / له مسیح سره صلیب شوی (da Masih sara salib shaway) — [TM fixed] | Shares Qur’anic crucifixion-denial (4:157) root ص-ل-ب; additionally, identifying oneself with a shameful execution directly inverts honor-shame instinct. | Retain TM compound; require oral/narrative apologetic scaffolding (historicity of the crucifixion) before teaching the participatory doctrine, per baseline mandate; pair with فخر (boasting, 6:14) to make the honor-inversion an explicit teaching point rather than an unexamined tension. |
| 6 | The Abrahamic Covenant and Promise | ابراهیم (Ibrahim) / تړون (tarun) / وعده (wa’da) / نسل (nasl) — [TM fixed] | Ibrahim is the Qur’an’s paradigm of ritual/legal submission (near-sacrifice, Ka’ba origins), the near-opposite of Paul’s justification-apart-from-works reading; تړون risks the negotiated-pact-between-equals default. | Explicitly foreground Genesis 15:6 (already fixed as محسوبه شوی صداقت) as the interpretive key before introducing Galatians 3’s argument, so Ibrahim is anchored to crediting-by-faith before any ritual-submission association can dominate. |
| 1F | The Abrahamic Covenant and Promise (Hagar/Ishmael) | هاجره / اسماعیل / ساره / اسحاق — [TM fixed, Critical] | The single most culturally explosive term-set in the letter: Hajira and Ismail are venerated Hajj-central figures; allegorizing them as “the covenant of slavery” risks being heard as an ethnic/religious slight, not exegesis. | Mandatory theologian review at every occurrence (4:24-31); teaching material must state up front, unprompted, that the argument is covenant-typological (law vs. promise as two ways of relating to God), never a claim about the spiritual status of any people group today. |
| 7 | The Law’s Purpose | ناموس / روزونکی (rozawunkay, guardian) / منځګړی (manzgaray, mediator) — [رزونکی, منځګړی NEW] | No Pashtunwali institution matches παιδαγωγός’s temporary, terminating child-supervisor role — tribal elder guardianship is open-ended and does not expire at “maturity” the way Paul’s illustration requires. | Render روزونکی descriptively with an explicit termination clause (“until faith came,” 3:24-25) stated in the same sentence, so readers do not import an ongoing-guardianship expectation from their own kinship structures. |
| 8 | Adoption and Sonship | زوی نیول (zoy neyol) / وارثان (warisan) / د خدای زامن (da Khudai zaman) — [TM fixed] | Rigid Pashtun patrilineal qawm/khel inheritance and Islamic farā’iḍ inheritance law both make a non-blood heir’s full inheritance status nearly unthinkable by cultural default; distinct from Christ’s unique زوی (son) requires careful separation. | Keep the singular/plural distinction (د خدای زوی for Christ only vs. د خدای زامن for believers) visually and grammatically unmistakable in every lesson; teach 4:1-7’s guardian-to-heir transition as the explanatory bridge for how status changes without blood descent. |
| 9 | Freedom in Christ | ازادي (azadi) — [TM fixed] | The single highest positive-emotional-charge word in the modern Pashto political vocabulary (independence movements, anti-occupation rhetoric, Taliban’s own “Islamic Emirate” liberation framing); extremely likely to be heard as political/social liberation. | Every occurrence in Galatians 2:4, 5:1, 5:13 must be immediately and explicitly anchored (“freedom from the law’s condemnation,” “freedom for loving service, not for the flesh”) within the same sentence or clause — never left as an unqualified standalone noun. |
| 10 | Circumcision and the New Creation | ختنه (khatna) / نوی مخلوق (nawi makhluq) — [TM fixed] | ختنه names a near-universal childhood rite for the entire target male readership, unlike Paul’s adult-Gentile-convert audience; risk of the whole argument being heard as an attack on a cultural/religious practice rather than on works-based identity markers. | Every occurrence (2:3-5, 5:2-6, 6:12-15) must reframe circumcision explicitly as shorthand for “relying on law-identity for righteousness,” never as commentary on the physical practice itself, which the text is not addressing for this audience’s actual life situation. |
| 11 | Flesh versus Spirit | نفس (nafs) / روح (rooh) — [TM fixed, Critical] | نفس اماره (Q12:53) is a load-bearing category in regional Sufi moral psychology, where victory over نفس is achieved by ascetic self-discipline (mujahada al-nafs); Galatians 5 teaches victory by the Spirit’s active work, the near-opposite mechanism. | Mandatory theologian review at every occurrence; never present نفس-mastery as an achievable self-effort project — anchor every ethical exhortation in ch. 5-6 explicitly to “walking by the Spirit” (5:16, 5:25) as the enabling cause. |
| 12 | Fruit of the Spirit | د روح القدس مېوه (da Rooh-ul-Qudus mewa) — [NEW, fixed in registry] | Risk of collapsing the grammatical singular (“fruit,” one organic character) into the plural (“works” of the flesh, 5:19-21) pattern, erasing Paul’s deliberate contrast between produced-character and performed-deeds. | Preserve singular مېوه consistently even where individual virtues are listed; never pluralize to “مېوې” (fruits); keep vocabulary distinct from روحاني ورکړې (spiritual gifts) at every occurrence. |
| 13 | Faith Working through Love | هغه ایمان چې د مینې له لارې کار کوي (hagha iman che da mine la lare kar kawi) — [NEW] | Genuine risk of readers (and even careful translators) hearing this as “faith-plus-loving-deeds jointly justify,” directly undoing 2:16’s polemic; also risk of مینه being read as sentiment/romance rather than covenantal self-giving. | Always position this phrase as describing faith’s fruit/evidence, never its ground; cross-reference 2:20’s مینه (Christ’s self-giving love) as the paradigm sense before 5:6’s usage. |
| 14 | Bearing One Another’s Burdens | د یو بل درانه بارونه پورته کړئ / خپل بار (own load) — [NEW] | Genuinely low risk; the one caution is collapsing 6:2 (shared burden, بار) and 6:5 (one’s own non-transferable load, پېټی/بار) into the same undifferentiated vocabulary, erasing Paul’s intentional contrast. | Use two visibly distinct Pashto nouns for 6:2 vs 6:5 (as already proposed: درانه بارونه vs خپل بار/پېټی) and maintain that distinction consistently across all lesson materials. |
2. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods
2.1 Missing Vocabulary (No Adequate Native Term — Coin, Borrow, or Paraphrase)
These concepts have no existing single Pashto word carrying the needed sense; a compound, loanword, or periphrasis is required, as already proposed in 08_core_glossary.md/bible_term_registry.json. Restated here with the gap reasoning:
| Concept | Gap | Chosen Solution |
|---|---|---|
| παιδαγωγός (law as guardian) | No Pashtunwali or Islamic legal institution matches a temporary, terminating child-custodian role | روزونکی (descriptive) + explicit termination clause, not a single-word coinage |
| ἐξαγοράζω (redeem) | No native single verb captures “purchase out of bondage by substitutionary payment” distinct from ordinary buying/selling | خلاص کړی / خلاصون + calibrated bridge to فدیه (Islamic ransom concept), with explicit clarification that Christ himself, not currency, is the payment |
| στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου (elemental spirits) | No neutral Pashto term names “defeated cosmic religious systems”; available vocabulary defaults either to abstract philosophy or literal jinn-power | Periphrastic د دنیا لومړني اصول (ارواح) — retained but flagged for native-speaker calibration so it functions polemically, not as folk-theology endorsement |
| ζωὴ αἰώνιος (eternal life) as Spirit-given, not deeds-weighed | No existing Pashto phrase distinguishes “eternal life by the Spirit’s harvest” from the standard regional Paradise/deeds-weighing framework | تلپاتې ژوند + mandatory contrastive teaching note against the deeds-weighing default (already flagged under baseline salvation) |
| πίστις δι’ ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη (faith working through love) | No single Pashto term for this precise Pauline formula; compound-clause required | هغه ایمان چې د مینې له لارې کار کوي — full descriptive clause, not a coined noun |
| ἀφορμὴ τῇ σαρκί (opportunity for the flesh) | No idiomatic Pashto equivalent for “foothold/occasion” in this specific moral-opportunity sense | د نفس لپاره موقع — periphrastic, functional |
| δουλεύετε ἀλλήλοις διὰ τῆς ἀγάπης (Paul’s δουλ- root wordplay) | Pashto has no single root spanning both “slavery” (bondage under law) and “loving service” (voluntary submission) the way Greek δουλ- does | Accept the loss; render meaning plainly (د مینې له لارې یو بل ته خدمت وکړئ) and supply a translator’s teaching note explaining the wordplay is not reproducible |
2.2 Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods (Too Many Competing Native Associations — Require Fencing)
These are cases where a perfectly serviceable Pashto word exists but sits inside a dense cluster of other live, competing meanings that must be actively fenced off at every occurrence.
2.2.1 ناموس (namus) — “law,” but also, colloquially, “family honor” This is the single most important fencing issue newly surfaced by this Galatians-specific analysis and is more acute here than in the baseline Romans package, because Galatians’ argument depends on دense, repeated use of νόμος across nearly every chapter (works of the law, law’s purpose, law of Christ, elemental spirits as law-like bondage), multiplying the collision surface. In colloquial Pashto — independent of any Bible-translation register — ناموس is a live, emotionally load-bearing word for the honor of women in a household, one of Pashtunwali’s three defining pillars (alongside زان/zan and زمکه/zamin — woman, gold, land). A hearer encountering “د ناموس کړنې” (“works of the law”) without firm contextual anchoring risks momentarily processing it as “deeds done for family honor” rather than “Torah-observance.” This risk was present but less prominent under the Romans baseline (law appears, but far less densely, and Romans’ argument is not built primarily around a law/grace antithesis chapter after chapter the way Galatians 2-5 is).
- Fencing strategy: at first occurrence in each lesson/chapter unit, gloss explicitly as “د موسی ناموس” (the Law of Moses) rather than the bare noun; never allow ناموس to stand alone in a title or heading without a modifying phrase; flag any segment where ناموس co-occurs with family/household vocabulary for mandatory native-speaker disambiguation review, since such co-occurrence is where confusion is most likely.
2.2.2 غیرت (ghairat) — “zeal,” but also Pashtunwali’s honor-code animating virtue Already flagged Critical in the core glossary; restated here as a fencing case because غیرت is not merely a risky word but the namer of an entire regional ethical-political discourse (including contemporary jihadist/tribal-honor rhetoric). Both Galatians occurrences (1:14, Paul’s own pre-conversion zeal; 4:17-18, the false teachers’ manipulative zeal) present this quality negatively or ambivalently — never as a virtue to imitate. Left unfenced, a reader could easily walk away crediting Paul’s “zeal” as commendable fervor merely misdirected, rather than recognizing the text’s actual verdict (that this zeal drove him to violently persecute the church, and that the same instinct now drives Paul’s opponents to manipulate the Galatians).
- Fencing strategy: never pair غیرت with any positively-valenced modifier in translation; supply an explicit editorial note at both occurrences stating the zeal in view is repudiated or exposed as self-serving, not a redirected virtue.
2.2.3 ختنه (khatna) — “circumcision” as universal practice vs. Pauline polemical target Not ambiguous in meaning but crowded in lived referent: for virtually every Pashto Muslim male reader, ختنه is a completed childhood memory, not a live decision, unlike Paul’s Gentile audience. This creates a referential mismatch risk distinct from a purely lexical one — hearers may (mis)apply Paul’s argument to their own already-completed circumcision as if it retroactively endangers their standing, or conversely dismiss the whole argument as inapplicable (“that’s not a decision I’m facing”).
- Fencing strategy: every occurrence must explicitly redirect from the physical past act to the present question of what one is relying on for righteousness (2:3-5, 5:2-6, 6:12-15); teaching material should state directly that having been circumcised as an infant is not itself Paul’s target.
2.2.4 زنا (zina) — “sexual immorality” (πορνεία) vs. Islamic hadd-law penal category زنا in the Pashto-speaking legal-religious environment names a specific criminal offense with prescribed penal consequences under Islamic law, not a general pastoral-ethical category. Galatians 5:19 uses πορνεία broadly. Left unfenced, teaching could either (a) sound like the church is issuing a civil/criminal verdict, dangerously so given honor-killing risk in some regional contexts, or (b) be dismissed as inapplicable to any conduct short of the narrow legal definition.
- Fencing strategy: explicitly frame as a pastoral-moral category addressed through church accountability and repentance (5:19-21, 6:1), never as language authorizing or referencing civil/criminal penalty.
2.2.5 نفس (nafs) — “flesh” vs. Sufi ascetic-psychology نفس اماره Already Critical per the registry; restated as the paradigm crowded-neighborhood case in this letter because چapters 5-6 are saturated with flesh/Spirit contrasts, multiplying exposure. The competing frame (self-discipline defeats نفس) is not a fringe folk belief but a mainstream regional devotional category with centuries of literary reinforcement (Rahman Baba, Sufi tariqa practice).
- Fencing strategy: mandatory theologian review at every occurrence; pair every ethical exhortation with explicit Spirit-agency language (“not by your own strength but by the Spirit,” reflecting 5:16, 5:25, 3:3) so self-effort framing cannot silently substitute for Paul’s actual mechanism.
2.2.6 فخر کول (fakhr kawal) — “boasting” (καυχάομαι) vs. Islamic kibr (sinful pride) فخر/pride-vocabulary in Islamic ethical discourse is default-negative (kibr, arrogance, condemned). Galatians 6:14’s paradoxical positive boasting-in-the-cross could either be smoothed into an acceptable humility statement (losing Paul’s deliberate honor-shame inversion) or rejected as sinful self-exaltation language transplanted onto God’s glory.
- Fencing strategy: teach 6:14 explicitly as a deliberate paradox — boasting in a source of shame (the cross) rather than a source of worldly honor — rather than either softening the vocabulary or leaving the tension unexplained.
2.2.7 ازادي (azadi) — “freedom” vs. political/military liberation discourse Covered in the vocabulary matrix above (§1, Freedom in Christ); restated here because it is a neighborhood problem, not merely a lexical one — ازادي is embedded in ongoing regional political discourse (anti-occupation movements, the Taliban’s own claimed “liberation” framing), meaning the collision is reinforced by daily news and political rhetoric, not simply by a dictionary definition.
- Fencing strategy: as above — mandatory co-occurring qualification at every use.
3. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions
The following decision framework governs when a Greek/theological term is (a) transliterated as a loanword, (b) rendered with an existing native Pashto word, or (c) rendered periphrastically (a descriptive clause rather than a single word). This extends the baseline’s own precedent (e.g., ناموس as a Greek loanword following the Arabic strategy; تجسد as a technical noun paired with a periphrastic sending-statement).
| Strategy | When Used | Galatians Examples | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transliteration/loanword | When any native word would import a specific, disqualifying wrong association, and a distinct Christian-register loanword already exists or can be safely established | تعمید (baptism, NEVER غسل); صلیب (cross); تجسد (incarnation); مکاشفه (apostolic revelation, with mandatory framing caveat); مسیح (Messiah) | A loanword carries no pre-existing native connotation to fence; the entire meaning must be taught, which is safer than inheriting a wrong meaning by default. |
| Native word, reused/fixed | When a native term’s core sense is accurate and any residual risk is manageable through explicit contextual fencing rather than replacement | فضل (grace); ایمان (faith); صداقت (righteousness); ناموس (law, with mandatory namus-honor fencing per §2.2.1); نفس (flesh, with mandatory Sufi fencing per §2.2.5) | Replacing these with invented or borrowed terms would sacrifice intelligibility and oral-register naturalness for a marginal risk-reduction that fencing already addresses; consistent with baseline’s own reasoning for خدای, سوله, etc. |
| Periphrasis (descriptive clause, no single-word equivalent) | When no native word or safe loanword exists at all for the specific technical sense required | روزونکی + termination clause (παιδαγωγός); د دنیا لومړني اصول (ارواح) (elemental spirits); هغه ایمان چې د مینې له لارې کار کوي (faith working through love); خلاص کړی/خلاصون with فدیه bridge (redeem) | Forcing a single word here would either flatten a nuanced argument (guardian’s temporariness) or fail to exist at all; a full clause preserves the necessary qualification within the rendering itself. |
| Calibrated cultural-bridge borrowing | When an existing Islamic/Pashtunwali institution offers a genuine, imperfect positive analogy that the baseline methodology has already validated elsewhere (e.g., نانوتی for substitutionary atonement) | فدیه (ransom) as bridge for ἐξαγοράζω; نفس اماره acknowledged (not adopted) as the contrast point for flesh/Spirit, not itself a bridge | Bridges are powerful precisely because they are pre-loaded with cultural resonance — but per baseline precedent (نانوتی), every bridge requires an explicit statement of where the analogy breaks down, to prevent overreach. |
| Explicit avoidance (reject the “obvious” term) | When the linguistically nearest native term is doctrinally disqualifying despite surface fit | منافقت rejected for hypocrisy (→ دوه مخي); شریعت rejected for law (→ ناموس, baseline); لاسته راوړی صداقت rejected for imputed righteousness; امت/امتونه rejected for church/Gentiles; ن-س-خ root rejected for nullify/annul (→ باطلول) | Each rejected term carries a specific, named doctrinal collision (Qur’anic نفاق category; shari’a identification; works-righteousness; pan-Islamic ummah; abrogation/naskh doctrine) documented in the term registry; this is the single most consistent methodological pattern across the whole Language Package and Galatians adds two more instances to it (منافقت, باطلول). |
4. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities in Galatians
Ranked by combined severity (doctrinal centrality × collision depth × likelihood of misreading), for Phase 2 review-routing prioritization. All are already flagged Critical/High in the registry; ranking here is for triage sequencing, not to alter risk tier.
- Hagar/Ishmael allegory (4:21-31) — highest combined risk in the letter: a Critical doctrine (Abrahamic Covenant typology) intersecting the single most venerated non-Trinitarian religious-family narrative available to this audience (Hajj origins, prophetic status of Ismail). Misreading here risks not just doctrinal confusion but perceived communal insult. Mandatory theologian review, oral-culture-sensitive framing required before any written teaching is released.
- ناموس double-meaning collision (law vs. family honor) — newly surfaced by this analysis; ranked second because of its density across nearly the entire letter (chs. 2-5) rather than a single passage, multiplying exposure well beyond the baseline Romans risk profile for the same term.
- πίστις Χριστοῦ genitive ambiguity (2:16 ×3, 2:20, 3:22) — a live, unresolved question in NT scholarship itself (objective “faith in Christ” vs. subjective “the faithfulness of Christ”), occurring at the letter’s thesis statement; wrong resolution changes who the acting subject of saving faith is.
- غیرت (zeal) as ambivalently-presented honor-code virtue (1:14, 4:17-18) — high risk of the text being heard as endorsing a redirected version of an honor-code virtue it in fact repudiates or exposes as manipulative.
- ختنه (circumcision) referential mismatch — near-certain risk of misapplication given every male reader’s own already-completed circumcision, unlike Paul’s live-decision Gentile audience.
- νόμος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, “law of Christ” (6:2) — risk of implying a new parallel legal code precisely in a letter whose entire argument opposes reliance on any legal code for righteousness; a self-undermining misreading if not fenced.
- ὁ Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ, “the Israel of God” (6:16) — genuine scholarly exegetical ambiguity (church vs. ethnic Israel) compounded by regional political sensitivity around the proper name; requires settled theological framing before translation, not resolution left to the translator in the moment.
- σάρξ/πνεῦμα, flesh/Spirit (5:16-25, 6:8) — dense, repeated occurrence across two full chapters against the mainstream regional Sufi self-discipline framework for defeating نفس; highest-density Critical term-pair in the letter by occurrence count.
- κατάρα, “became a curse” (3:13) — compounds crucifixion-denial with the Islamic prophetic-protection (ismah) doctrine; theologically dense single verse requiring full substitutionary-plus-resurrection framing every time it is taught.
- ἐλευθερία, “freedom” (2:4, 5:1, 5:13) — high likelihood of political-liberation conflation given live regional discourse; risk is behavioral/interpretive rather than exegetical, but pervasive across the letter’s second half.
- στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου, “elemental spirits” (4:3, 4:9) — risk of literal folk-jinn theology endorsement rather than the intended polemic against defeated religious systems.
- πορνεία, “sexual immorality” (5:19) vs. زنا’s Islamic hadd-law register — risk of the vice-list being heard as a criminal charge-sheet rather than a pastoral-ethical one.
- ὑπόκρισις, “hypocrisy” (2:13) — lower absolute risk than the above (a resolved lexical decision: دوه مخي over منافقت) but ranked for visibility given how easily a translator unfamiliar with the specific نفاق collision could default to the “obvious” cognate-adjacent term.
- σπέρμα, “seed/offspring” (3:16) — a genuine linguistic asset (نسل’s unmarked collective number matching Greek) that becomes high-risk only through translator error (adding an unnecessary plural marker), making this a quality-control/proofing risk rather than a comprehension risk.
Coverage Confirmation
This analysis addresses all fourteen curriculum doctrines (Justification by Faith; The True Gospel versus False Gospels; Paul’s Apostleship; Law and Grace; Crucified with Christ; The Abrahamic Covenant and Promise; The Law’s Purpose; Adoption and Sonship; Freedom in Christ; Circumcision and the New Creation; Flesh versus Spirit; Fruit of the Spirit; Faith Working through Love; Bearing One Another’s Burdens) with load-bearing vocabulary drawn from every chapter of Galatians 1-6, consistent with 08_core_glossary.md’s chapter-by-chapter coverage confirmation. No new term renderings are introduced here that conflict with the baseline translation_memory.json, bible_term_registry.json, or doctrine_risk_registry.json; this document’s sole newly-surfaced finding — the ناموس “law/family-honor” collision (§2.2.1) — is a fencing addition to an already-fixed baseline term, not a proposed change to its rendering, and should be carried into Phase 2 Step 17 review routing as an explicit checklist item for every ناموس occurrence in this curriculum.