06 — Linguistic Gap Analysis: 1 Peter (Persian)

Purpose and Method

This analysis extends the Romans baseline Language Package to the 1 Peter curriculum. It builds directly on 08_core_glossary.md and the updated assets/bible_term_registry.json entries already drafted for this letter, and answers four PRD Step 8 questions:

1. Per curriculum doctrine, which Persian terms are available, what are their specific weaknesses, and what translation strategy is recommended?
2. Where does Persian have no adequate existing vocabulary (requiring new compounds/paraphrase), versus where does it have too much competing vocabulary already loaded with rival meaning (requiring deliberate semantic fencing)?
3. Where should the translation transliterate (preserve a foreign/technical form) versus paraphrase (explain in native terms)?
4. What are this letter’s highest-risk ambiguities, ranked?

Coverage spans 1 Peter 1–5 in full; every chapter has been reviewed. Chapters/passages contributing no new terminological risk beyond what is already logged are noted explicitly in Section 7.

All renderings below either reuse the Romans baseline exactly (marked [BASELINE]) or extend the provisional 1 Peter glossary already logged in bible_term_registry.json (marked [1PET]). This document does not introduce new canonical renderings; it organizes the existing decisions into gap-analysis form and flags where further Phase 1 steps (doctrine risk registry update, AI requirements update) must act.

---

Section 1 — Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

Organized by the eight curriculum doctrines. “Available terms” lists real Persian candidates (not only the chosen one); “weakness” names the specific collision; “strategy” states the enforced decision.

1. The Living Hope of the Resurrection

Concept	Available Persian terms	Weakness of each	Recommended strategy
Hope	امید (omid) / رجا (raja)	رجا is the direct Quranic-cognate term (Islamic rajā’), denoting hope held in tension with an uncertain final deeds-weighing verdict, not confident assurance	Use امید, qualified as امید زنده (“living hope”) [1PET], and teach explicitly that its ground is an accomplished, past-tense fact (the resurrection), not a hoped-for future outcome
Resurrection	قیامت (qiyamat) / رستاخیز (rastakhiz) / تناسخ (tanasokh — rejected)	قیامت is shared Quranic Judgment-Day vocabulary; رستاخیز is a rarer literary-secular alternative with weaker Christian-tradition attestation; تناسخ denotes reincarnation and must never be used	[BASELINE] قیامت retained; must be anchored to Christ’s own singular historical rising (1:3), not the general end-time resurrection of all humanity that قیامت can also denote in Islamic usage
Inheritance	میراث (miras) / ارث (ers)	Both are the live, everyday operative terms for Quranic fixed-share inheritance law (Surah 4:11-12) governing actual Iranian family estate division today	[1PET] Retain میراث (already the more theologically established choice) but require an explicit teaching gloss at every occurrence: unapportioned, unforfeitable, secured by union with the risen Christ — not divided by fixed shares among heirs
Imperishability	نابودنشدنی / نافانی / باقی	نافانی and باقی carry Sufi/Islamic ontological overtones (survival of the soul, God’s own attribute of Baqi, “the Everlasting,” one of the 99 Names)	[1PET] Use the more neutral, non-devotional-attribute compound نابودنشدنی to avoid implicitly attributing a divine Name-category to the believer’s inheritance
Christ’s return	ظهور (zohur) / رجعت (roj’at) / بازگشت (bazgasht)	ظهور is the fixed technical term for the Hidden Twelfth Imam’s awaited reappearance; رجعت carries its own Shia doctrinal loading (the return of certain deceased to witness the Imam’s rule)	[1PET] Retain ظهور (already lexically standard in Persian Bible tradition for ἀποκάλυψις) but mandate a repeated explicit doctrinal corrective at every occurrence distinguishing Christ’s own primary, exclusive return from Mahdi-centered expectation — see Section 5, Rank 2

2. Suffering for Righteousness’ Sake / Christ’s Substitutionary Suffering (treated jointly given their shared vocabulary)

Concept	Available Persian terms	Weakness of each	Recommended strategy
Suffering	رنج (ranj) / درد (dard) / عذاب (azab)	رنج is the standard, least-loaded choice; عذاب carries strong punitive/hellish connotation (Quranic azab, torment) and must be avoided for believers’ innocent suffering; درد is narrower (physical pain only)	[1PET] رنج / رنج کشیدن retained throughout; require doctrine-note discipline (see Section 3) distinguishing Christ’s once-for-all atoning suffering from believers’ ongoing exemplary/participatory suffering
Substitutionary bearing of sin	بر خود گرفت (compound) vs. کفاره (kaffareh)	کفاره is the standard Islamic legal-ritual term for expiatory compensation (e.g., missed-fast compensation, oath-breaking atonement) — a repeatable, works-adjacent ritual-payment category	[1PET] Avoid کفاره entirely; retain the descriptive compound گناهان ما را بر خود گرفت, which narrates the action rather than naming it with a pre-loaded ritual-legal term
Ransom	فدیه (fidyeh) / فدا (feda) / تاوان (tavan)	فدیه is direct Quranic vocabulary (37:107) and a live, ongoing ritual-legal payment category (Ramadan fidyah); تاوان (penalty/compensation) is more neutral but weaker theologically, lacking sacrificial-substitution force	[1PET] Retain فدا شدید/فدیه per the existing registry entry, but this is the single term in the letter most requiring an explicit “once, not repeatable” doctrinal gloss, given its lexical proximity to a currently-practiced ritual obligation
Once-for-all finality	یک‌بار برای همیشه / یک‌بار برای ابد	No true one-word Persian equivalent for ἅπαξ’s forensic finality exists; both candidate phrases are compounds, not lexicon gaps	[1PET] Retain the compound یک‌بار برای همیشه; this is a genuine vocabulary gap requiring paraphrase, not a collision requiring fencing (see Section 2)
Participatory suffering	مشارکت در رنج / شریک شدن در رنج	مشارکت shares its ش-ر-ک root with shirk (already flagged in the Romans baseline for “fellowship”); شریک شدن (to become a partner/sharer) intensifies this same root-resonance and additionally suggests co-equal partnership	[1PET] Retain در رنج‌های مسیح مشارکت کردن (already established) but this is the single highest-risk phrase in the entire letter — see Section 5, Rank 1

3. The Church as a Holy and Royal Priesthood

Concept	Available Persian terms	Weakness of each	Recommended strategy
Priesthood	كهانت (kahanat) / روحانیت (ruhaniyat)	روحانیت is the standing, everyday Persian term for Iran’s actual ordained clerical class (mullahs, ayatollahs) and would directly assert that every believer holds ordained clerical office — an overcorrection; كهانت is more OT-cultic-specific and less tied to the present clerical establishment	[1PET] Retain كهانت مقدس / كهانت سلطنتی; explicitly avoid روحانیت, which would collapse the very hierarchy Peter’s text dismantles back into a clerical-class category
Spiritual house / church	خانه روحانی / كلیسا / امت	كلیسا is baseline-established for ἐκκλησία but Peter’s Greek text itself does not use that word here; امت remains permanently rejected (Ummah-root)	[1PET] Use خانه روحانی only where the Greek has οἶκος πνευματικός (2:5); do not substitute كلیسا, preserving Peter’s own distinct ecclesial metaphor-set
Chosen/royal/holy people cluster	نسل، قوم، ملت	ملت (nation-state) carries nationalist-political overtones inappropriate for a spiritually-constituted people, and risks entanglement with Iran’s own state-nation rhetoric	[1PET] قوم preferred over ملت throughout (2:9-10); نسل reserved for the lineage/generation sense, explicitly glossed as non-ethnic
Spiritual sacrifice	قربانی روحانی / قربانی	Bare قربانی alone risks being read literally against the salient cultural backdrop of Eid-e Qorban’s actual animal sacrifice	[1PET] Always pair with روحانی qualifier, never used unqualified in this doctrine’s passages (2:5)

4. Submission to Authority and Christlike Endurance

Concept	Available Persian terms	Weakness of each	Recommended strategy
Submission	تابع بودن / اطاعت کردن / تسلیم شدن	تسلیم شدن (“to submit/surrender”) is etymologically and devotionally the closest Persian equivalent to the Arabic root of “Islam” itself (taslim/islam = submission/surrender to God) and risks collapsing NT ethical submission into the very identity-marker of the surrounding majority religion	[1PET] Use تابع بودن (civil/domestic contexts) and اطاعت کردن (general obedience); avoid تسلیم شدن for ὑποτάσσω throughout the letter
Human ruler (“king”)	پادشاه / رهبر / ولی فقیه (rejected)	Any term evoking Iran’s constitutional Supreme Leader office (Vali-ye Faqih/Rahbar) would improperly politicize 2:13-17’s civil-submission instruction	[1PET] پادشاه retained as the historically-distanced, depoliticized choice
Domestic “lord” (3:6)	آقا / خداوند (rejected here)	خداوند must remain exclusively reserved for Christ’s divine title per the baseline; using it for Sarah’s address to Abraham would dilute that reservation at the one point in the letter where the same Greek word (κύριος) appears in a plainly human, non-titular sense	[1PET] آقا mandated for 3:6 only; this is a segment-level exception requiring a standing validation-rule flag (see AI requirements update)
“Weaker vessel”	ظرف ضعیف‌تر / جنس ضعیف	جنس ضعیف (“the weaker sex/gender”) risks a categorical, essentialist reading beyond Peter’s narrower physical-strength point	[1PET] ظرف ضعیف‌تر (vessel imagery) preferred; must always appear paired with “joint heirs” in the same teaching unit

5. Elders and Humility

Concept	Available Persian terms	Weakness of each	Recommended strategy
Elder	کشیشان / مشایخ / شیخ / پیر	مشایخ/شیخ collide doubly: (a) Shia clerical rank terminology, (b) Sufi spiritual-master honorific; پیر (elder/Sufi master) carries the same mystical-authority loading	[1PET] کشیشان retained as the least-loaded option, though it itself imports a post-Reformation “clergy” flavor foreign to Peter’s plural, non-hierarchical, congregationally-embedded eldership — flagged as an imperfect-but-best-available choice, not a clean fit
Chief Shepherd	شبان اعظم / رهبر اعظم / ولی امر (rejected)	ولی امر (“guardian of the affairs,” a title applied to the Supreme Leader) must never be used, being a live political-religious title; رهبر اعظم (“supreme leader,” literal) risks direct political namesake collision	[1PET] شبان اعظم (pastoral-shepherd register, not political-ruler register) mandated; must be taught with explicit, deliberate contrast to Iran’s actual Supreme Leader office
Humility	تواضع / فروتنی	فروتنی is a plainer native-Persian synonym with less devotional weight; تواضع shares its root with Arabic/Islamic tawadu’	[1PET] تواضع retained as the positive bridge term, but must be anchored to the Proverbs 3:34 citation and Christ’s own pattern, not generic social etiquette

6. Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits (1 Peter 3:18-22)

Concept	Available Persian terms	Weakness of each	Recommended strategy
Spirits in prison	ارواح در بند / اجنه (rejected) / جن (rejected)	اجنه/جن (jinn) is the dominant, deeply active Iranian folk-Islamic category for unseen spirit-beings (possession, exorcism, amulets; attested in Quran 72)	[1PET] ارواح در بند / روح‌های زندانی mandated; جن/اجنه forbidden substitutions requiring an explicit standing validation rule
Proclaimed	اعلام کرد / بشارت داد (rejected here)	بشارت داد (evangelized) would imply an offer of salvation extended to imprisoned spirits, teaching an unwarranted post-mortem second chance	[1PET] اعلام کرد (neutral herald-verb) mandated specifically for 3:19; بشارت داد remains correct and required for 1:12,25; 4:6’s separate εὐαγγελίζω occurrences — this is a same-root, different-verb disambiguation requiring careful segment-level tracking
Baptism	تعمید / غسل تعمید	غسل (ghusl) shares its root with the major Islamic ritual major-ablution term (ghusl) performed after specific states of impurity	[1PET] تعمید alone preferred over غسل تعمید to reduce the ghusl-resonance; Peter’s own explicit disclaimer clause (“not a removal of dirt from the body”) must be translated with full, unreduced force alongside the positive statement
Gospel to the dead	به مردگان بشارت داده شد	No single-term issue; the risk is doctrinal-sequencing (this verse plus 3:19 read together) rather than lexical	[1PET] Retain literal rendering; the safeguard is a mandatory paired teaching-note distinguishing 4:6 from 3:19, not a lexical substitution

7. Holiness in Conduct

Concept	Available Persian terms	Weakness of each	Recommended strategy
Born again	تولد تازه / تولد دوباره	تولد دوباره is a slightly more literal calque, functionally interchangeable, but تولد تازه is the term already established as a self-designation among Iranian Protestant/house-church converts	[1PET] تولد تازه retained as the existing convert-identity asset; must be distinguished from Sufi فنا (fana, mystical self-annihilation/rebirth as an achieved contemplative state)
Word of God	کلام خدا / کلمه خدا	کلمه خدا risks direct overlap with the Quranic Christological title “Kalimat Allah”/“Kalimatuhu” applied to Isa himself (Quran 4:171)	[1PET] کلام خدا preferred over کلمه خدا specifically to create lexical distance from the Quranic Christological title, while still requiring an explicit teaching note that this phrase denotes the gospel-message/scripture, not Christ’s person
Reverent fear	ترس / خداترسی / تقوا (rejected)	تقوا (taqwa, God-consciousness) is embedded in Islam’s deeds-weighing framework of uncertain final judgment, which would reintroduce the very anxiety Peter’s filial-fear concept excludes	[1PET] ترس/خداترسی retained; تقوا rejected as a substitute despite superficial semantic proximity

---

Section 2 — Missing Vocabulary Requiring New Compounds or Paraphrase

These are concepts for which no single existing Persian word carries the needed sense; Persian must build a compound, and no rival-meaning collision is the primary concern (contrast with Section 3).

Concept	Gap	Compound solution
Living hope (ἐλπὶς ζῶσα)	No noun-adjective pairing in ordinary Persian applies “living/alive” to abstract hope	امید زنده — a coined-but-transparent compound, now established via this glossary
Tested genuineness of faith (τὸ δοκίμιον τῆς πίστεως)	No single word for “proven-genuine-through-testing” applied to faith	خلوص آزموده‌شده ایمان — three-word compound; must remain stable across 1:7 and its 4:12 fiery-trial echo
Once for all (ἅπαξ)	No adverb carries forensic non-repeatability in one word	یک‌بار برای همیشه
Bore our sins (substitutionary)	No single verb captures Isaiah 53’s sacrificial “bearing-up” sense	گناهان ما را بر خود گرفت — deliberately narrative rather than technical, to avoid smuggling in a ritual-legal term like کفاره
Put to death in flesh, made alive in spirit	No compact phrase preserves both the bodily-death and bodily-resurrection sense against a “merely spiritual survival” misreading	کشته شد در جسم، زنده شد در روح, always paired with an explicit note affirming bodily resurrection
Chief Shepherd	No existing single title in Persian church usage predates this text	شبان اعظم — new coinage, deliberately in pastoral rather than political register
Weaker vessel	No idiomatic Persian container-metaphor for a person exists	ظرف ضعیف‌تر — literal calque, requires explanatory gloss, not idiomatic on its own
Unfading crown of glory	No compact single-word “unfading-glory-crown” exists	تاج جلالِ تغییرناپذیر — three-element compound
Spirit of Christ (as OT-active)	No existing phrase distinguishes this from ordinary “Holy Spirit” in Persian church usage	روح مسیح — retained as a distinct, sharper phrase requiring its own explanatory note

Implication: These gaps are not primarily doctrinal-collision risks (no rival tradition-loaded term competes for the space) but clarity risks: without a stable, memorized compound, translators may drift toward ad hoc paraphrase across documents, breaking learner consistency. All compounds above must be locked in translation memory before Phase 2 begins.

---

Section 3 — Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods Requiring Fencing

These are the inverse problem: Persian has abundant, well-established vocabulary in the neighborhood, but every candidate carries unwanted doctrinal freight from a specific rival tradition. “Fencing” means the chosen term must be hedged with mandatory, repeated doctrinal notes at every occurrence — a single glossary entry is not sufficient risk mitigation.

Semantic neighborhood	Competing terms in the neighborhood	Rival tradition anchor	Fencing requirement
Suffering / martyrdom-devotion	رنج، عذاب، شهادت (shahadat, martyrdom)	Twelver Shia Ashura/Muharram devotional culture: Imam Hussein’s innocent suffering, ritually re-experienced annually, believed to carry intercessory benefit	Every occurrence of رنج in a Christological or believer-suffering context (nearly the whole letter) requires the doctrine-note discipline distinguishing (a) Christ’s unique atoning suffering, (b) believers’ non-atoning exemplary/participatory suffering, (c) neither being a Karbala-style ritual re-enactment. شهادت (martyrdom) must never be used for believers’ suffering, given its heavy Shia doctrinal freight around the Imams’ deaths
Christ’s return	ظهور، رجعت، بازگشت	Mahdi-centered Twelver Shia eschatology (Hidden Twelfth Imam)	ظهور retained (lexically standard) but fenced with mandatory repeated assertion of Christ’s own primary/exclusive return at 1:7, 1:13
Clerical/priestly office	كهانت، روحانیت، طبقه روحانی	Iran’s constitutionally entrenched clerical hierarchy (Velayat-e Faqih; mullahs, mujtahids, ayatollahs)	كهانت مقدس/سلطنتی fenced by explicit universal-priesthood teaching at every occurrence (2:5, 2:9); روحانیت excluded from candidate pool entirely
Ritual purification	تعمید، غسل، وضو	Daily-practice Islamic ritual ablutions (wudu, ghusl)	تعمید fenced by mandatory preservation of Peter’s own textual disclaimer (3:21b) every time 3:21 is taught, never presented as the positive clause alone
Inheritance law	میراث، ارث، سهم الارث	Quranic fixed-share inheritance law (4:11-12), a live, everyday Iranian civil-legal category	میراث fenced with an explicit “non-apportioned, unforfeitable” doctrinal gloss at 1:4 and 3:7
Ransom/expiation	فدیه، فدا، کفاره، تاوان	Quranic fidyah (37:107) and the ongoing ritual-legal practice of Ramadan fidyah payments; کفاره as a parallel expiatory-payment category	فدیه fenced with an explicit “once, unrepeatable, personal” gloss at 1:18-19; کفاره excluded entirely from the candidate pool for 2:24/1:18
Submission/obedience	تابع بودن، اطاعت کردن، تسلیم شدن	Islam’s own name/root meaning (“submission/surrender to God”)	تسلیم شدن excluded entirely as a rendering of ὑποτάσσω anywhere in the letter; تابع بودن/اطاعت کردن fenced with the fruit-not-ground caution already established in the Romans baseline for obedience_of_faith
Fellowship/participation root (ش‌ر‌ک)	مشارکت، شریک شدن، انبازی	Shirk (idolatrous partnership), the paradigm sin-category in both Sunni and Shia tawhid theology	Already flagged in the Romans baseline as a tolerated low-level resonance for ordinary “fellowship”; in 1 Peter 4:13 this resonance compounds with the suffering-neighborhood risk above, producing the letter’s single highest combined-risk phrase (see Section 5, Rank 1)
Grace / commendable conduct	فیض، پسندیده، قابل ستایش، لطف	Feyz’s emanationist philosophical loading (as in Romans) plus the letter’s own internal second, non-soteriological sense at 2:19-20	فیض fenced exactly as in the Romans baseline for soteriological occurrences; MUST NOT be used at 2:19-20, where پسندیده/قابل ستایش is mandated instead — an intra-letter homonym-fencing case unique to 1 Peter
Fear/reverence	ترس، خداترسی، تقوا، هراس	تقوا’s embeddedness in the Islamic deeds-weighing framework of uncertain final judgment	ترس/خداترسی fenced with an explicit note that this fear flows from an already-secured filial relationship (1:17), not judgment-uncertainty

---

Section 4 — Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions

Following the baseline’s practice (retaining Abba, Amen, Hallelujah as transliterations while translating theological content), this letter requires the following decisions:

Transliterate (preserve foreign/proper-noun form, per established Persian Christian Bible tradition):

• Proper names: عیسی (Isa), مسیح (Masih), پطرس (Petros/Peter — new for this curriculum; not present in Romans), پولس is not present in 1 Peter but سیلوانوس (Silvanus, 5:12) and مرقس (Mark, 5:13) are — both require established Tarjome Ghadeem/Mojdeh forms, not novel transliterations
• Place names (1:1): پونتوس (Pontus), غلاطیه (Galatia), کاپادوکیه (Cappadocia), آسیا (Asia), بیطینیه (Bithynia) — use the same established forms already fixed in Persian Bible tradition for Acts/the Pauline epistles; do not re-transliterate independently
• نوح (Noah) — already shared Quranic-Persian form, transliterate consistently
• بابل (Babylon, 5:13, likely code for Rome) — retain literal transliteration; a footnote may gloss the probable referent, but the text itself should not silently substitute “Rome”

Do NOT transliterate (paraphrase/translate into native theological vocabulary):

• ἀπολογία (3:15) — translate as پاسخ/دفاع, not a Greek-derived loan; the concept needs indigenized force given its real legal-interrogation stakes for the audience
• ὑπογραμμός (2:21) — translate as سرمشق/نمونه; a transliterated Greek loan would carry no meaning to the target reader
• ἀρχιποίμην (5:4) — translate as شبان اعظم; no transliteration precedent exists in Persian Bible tradition for this compound title

Borderline case requiring a documented decision:

• ζωοποιηθεὶς πνεύματι (3:18) — decision made to paraphrase as زنده شد در روح rather than coin a technical term, because the interpretive question (bodily vs. non-bodily) is precisely what is at doctrinal stake; a paraphrase that stays close to ordinary language, paired with a mandatory explanatory note, is safer than a technical compound that might appear to settle the question wordlessly.

---

Section 5 — Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities in 1 Peter

Ranked by combined severity (doctrinal centrality × cultural-collision intensity × frequency), highest first. All Rank 1–7 items require human theologian review routing per the doctrine risk registry framework.

1. در رنج‌های مسیح مشارکت کردن (4:13, “share in Christ’s sufferings”) — the single most precise structural echo of a specific Shia devotional practice (Ashura sineh-zani/qama-zani ritual “sharing” in Hussein’s suffering) found anywhere in this curriculum; combines two independently risky roots (مشارکت’s shirk-resonance, رنج’s Karbala-resonance) in one compound phrase.
2. ظهور for Christ’s return (1:7, 1:13) — fixed technical vocabulary of the Hidden Twelfth Imam’s awaited reappearance; used repeatedly at the letter’s theological high points (testing-unto-glory, hope set fully on grace to be revealed).
3. ارواح در بند / spirits in prison (3:19) — direct collision with the pervasive, actively-practiced Iranian folk-Islamic jinn paradigm; compounded by the passage’s inherent interpretive difficulty even in the source text.
4. كهانت مقدس / كهانت سلطنتی (2:5, 2:9) — confronts a live constitutional structure (Velayat-e Faqih) rather than an abstract theological rival; mistranslation risks either muting the doctrine’s force or making it sound like incitement to religious-political change rather than an ecclesiological claim.
5. تعمید’s disclaimer clause (3:21) — the doctrinal safeguard is contained in a subordinate clause that could easily be dropped or softened in translation/paraphrase, right where the collision with wudu/ghusl is most acute.
6. میراث (1:4, 3:7) — a live, everyday operative legal term; risk is less about outright doctrinal denial than about quiet, unnoticed conceptual substitution (readers assuming Quranic fixed-share logic without any signal that a different framework is in view).
7. فدیه/فدا شدید (1:18) — direct lexical overlap with an ongoing, currently-practiced ritual-legal payment category (Ramadan fidyah); risk of readers assimilating Christ’s ransom into a repeatable compensatory-payment logic.
8. مسیحی as identity-term (4:16) — not a translation-accuracy risk but a real-world safety/status risk: the same word carries protected-minority status for some readers and acute apostasy-related legal exposure for others; teaching materials must carry this awareness, not just the correct gloss.
9. خداوند vs. آقا (3:6) — low frequency (one occurrence) but structurally important: a single missed disambiguation would directly dilute the letter’s otherwise-consistent reservation of خداوند for Christ’s exclusive Lordship.
10. فیض’s dual sense (throughout vs. 2:19-20) — an intra-letter homonym risk unique to this curriculum; a translator following “translation memory says فیض” mechanically at 2:19-20 would introduce a doctrinal error by importing soteriological grace into an ethical-commendation statement.
11. کشیشان vs. مشایخ/شیخ (5:1, 5:5) — lower per-occurrence severity than Ranks 1-10 but structurally significant because it is this letter’s primary term for church office and interacts directly with the priesthood-of-all-believers doctrine (Rank 4).
12. شبان اعظم (5:4) — political-register collision risk with Iran’s Supreme Leader office is real but lower-frequency (single occurrence) and more easily contained by a single strong teaching note than Ranks 1-5.
13. کلام خدا (1:23, 4:11) — risk is subtler (a title collision, not a doctrine-denial collision) since the Quranic “Kalimat Allah” reference is to Christ’s person, not scripture; still requires explicit disambiguation given the same underlying phrase.
14. گناهان ما را بر خود گرفت vs. کفاره-adjacent readings (2:24) — risk is that even with the correct non-کفاره rendering chosen, hearers steeped in the کفاره/expiatory-payment framework may still assimilate the concept informally; requires reinforcing teaching, not merely correct lexical choice.

---

Section 6 — Cross-Reference to Prior Artifacts

• All Persian renderings named above are already recorded, with full doctrinal notes, in the updated bible_term_registry.json entries drafted for 1 Peter and in 08_core_glossary.md.
• This document performs no new term selection; it re-organizes those same decisions by (a) doctrine, (b) gap-type (missing vs. crowded), (c) transliteration policy, and (d) risk ranking, as required by PRD Step 8.
• The ranked list in Section 5 should directly inform the Step 9 doctrine_risk_registry.json update (new doctrine entries for the eight curriculum doctrines) and the Step 12 AI translation requirements update (new FORBIDDEN SUBSTITUTIONS and ESCALATION RULES entries for 1 Peter-specific terms: جن/اجنه for spirits in prison, کفاره for bore-our-sins/ransom, تسلیم شدن for submission, روحانیت for priesthood, ولی امر/رهبر اعظم for Chief Shepherd, شریک شدن as an alternate for share-in-sufferings).

---

Section 7 — Full-Book Coverage Confirmation

Every chapter of 1 Peter has been reviewed for this gap analysis:

• Chapter 1 (1:1-25): reviewed — living hope, resurrection, inheritance, testing/genuineness, ζωήν/ἀποκάλυψις (ظهور), ransom, lamb imagery, born again, word of God, reverent fear, love (agapē), soul. All addressed in Sections 1-5 above.
• Chapter 2 (2:1-25): reviewed — living stone, cornerstone, spiritual house, holy/royal priesthood, chosen race/holy nation, Gentiles, submission (civil and household), grace (commendable sense), example/pattern, sin-bearing, healing-by-wounds. All addressed above.
• Chapter 3 (3:1-22): reviewed — wife/husband submission, weaker vessel, domestic “lord,” gentle/quiet spirit, will of God, good conscience, defense/apologia, suffering for righteousness, once-for-all, substitution, put-to-death/made-alive, proclamation to spirits in prison, Noah, baptism, angelic subjection. All addressed above.
• Chapter 4 (4:1-19): reviewed — fiery trial, sharing in Christ’s sufferings, reproach for Christ’s name, Christian identity, gospel to the dead, love covers sins, hospitality, spiritual gifts, household of God, faithful Creator. All addressed above.
• Chapter 5 (5:1-14): reviewed — elders, shepherd/oversight, shameful gain, Chief Shepherd, unfading crown, humility, devil, kiss of love, closing benediction (peace/grace). All addressed above.

No chapter was found to contribute terminology outside the scope already captured in the doctrine vocabulary matrix, gap sections, and ranked ambiguity list above.