Linguistic Gap Analysis
Linguistic Gap Analysis: English → Persian, 2 Peter
0. Purpose and Method
This analysis identifies, for the 2 Peter curriculum, where the Persian language (a) lacks any adequate existing vocabulary for a required biblical concept, (b) has vocabulary that is dangerously “crowded” by competing Islamic, Shia-specific, Zoroastrian, or Sufi semantic neighbors, and (c) requires an explicit transliteration-vs-paraphrase decision. It builds directly on 08_core_glossary.md and assets/bible_term_registry.json, which already resolved most individual term choices; this document explains the reasoning behind those choices at the systemic level, surfaces a small number of additional risks not yet flagged, and ranks the letter’s highest-risk ambiguities for Phase 2 prioritization.
2 Peter presents a distinct linguistic profile from Romans: it is shorter, more polemical, denser in hapax legomena (unique NT vocabulary — παρουσία’s technical sense, φέρω’s nautical metaphor, στρεβλόω’s rack-torture image, ταρταρόω’s borrowed Greco-Roman mythology), and structurally organized around three doctrinal peaks (1:16-21 inspiration/Transfiguration; ch. 2 false-teacher polemic; ch. 3 eschatology) that each collide with a different stratum of Iranian religious vocabulary: Sunni-Shia shared Quranic apparatus (chs. 1-2), Twelver Shia-specific doctrine (chs. 1, 3), and Persian-indigenous mystical/philosophical vocabulary (Sufi, Illuminationist/Sadraean) that sits mostly outside the Romans baseline’s own risk profile (ch. 1, 3).
1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix
For each of the seven curriculum doctrines: the candidate Persian terms considered, their specific weaknesses, and the recommended strategy (cross-referenced to the core glossary’s binding decision).
1.1 The Reliability and Inspiration of Scripture
| Candidate | Weakness |
|---|---|
| وحی (vahy) | Rejected outright — the exact Quranic technical term for verbatim angelic dictation to a passive human recipient; using it for 2 Peter 1:21 would assert the very mechanical-dictation model the verse’s own φέρω metaphor is chosen to avoid. |
| الهام (elham) | Compatible — already the Romans-baseline doctrine-registry label for “Inspiration of Scripture” (الهام کتاب مقدس). Retained as the doctrine name; not used as the verb rendering itself. |
| برانگیخته شدن / هدایت شدن (carried along) | Adequate as a verb-level compound but carries no independent doctrinal weight of its own; must be taught relationally (Spirit-guided human author retaining voice) rather than left to stand alone. |
| تحریف کردن (tahrif) | Reserved deliberately for στρεβλόω (3:16), not for the inspiration doctrine itself — see §4 below. |
Recommended strategy: Retain کتاب مقدس / نوشتههای مقدس for γραφή, هدایت شدن (توسط روحالقدس) for φερόμενοι, and الهام as the doctrine label — all per the core glossary. The genuine linguistic gap is not lexical but conceptual-relational: Persian has no existing single word contrasting “dictation” against “Spirit-superintended human authorship,” so every occurrence of 1:20-21 requires an accompanying teaching note distinguishing this from wahy, not merely a translated verb.
1.2 Growing in Christian Virtue
| Candidate | Weakness |
|---|---|
| تقوا (taqwa) | Rejected for εὐσέβεια (godliness) — the central Quranic virtue-category, would assimilate 2 Peter’s ethic into Quranic piety vocabulary wholesale. |
| پارسایی | Already rejected at the baseline level for righteousness (Zoroastrian achievement-virtue); the same achievement-ethic risk recurs for ἀρετή (virtue) and must be actively guarded against even though فضیلت itself is retained. |
| ریاضت / ضبط نفس (Sufi ascetic self-discipline) | Rejected for ἐγκράτεια — imports a self-effort ascetic framework (the dervish’s disciplining of the nafs) rather than Spirit-empowered growth. |
| خداترسی, کوشش, استقامت, محبت برادرانه, محبت | Retained per glossary; broadly low-to-medium risk, but every item in the seven-link virtue chain (1:5-7) sits adjacent to an existing Persian ethical-religious category (Islamic akhlaq literature, Sufi stages of the path) that assumes self-cultivated ascent. |
Recommended strategy: No single term is missing, but the entire virtue chain (1:5-7) is a crowded neighborhood collectively, not just term-by-term: Persian devotional literature already has a well-developed vocabulary of sequential spiritual ascent (the Sufi manazil/stations of the path). 2 Peter 1:5-7’s chain must be taught explicitly as grace-empowered addition (ἐπιχορηγέω, 1:5) flowing from 1:3-4’s prior gift, not a self-propelled ladder — the fencing is doctrinal framing, not lexical substitution.
1.3 False Teachers and Their Judgment
| Candidate | Weakness |
|---|---|
| بدعت (bid’ah) | Already rejected in the core glossary for αἱρέσεις ἀπωλείας — the major Sunni/Shia legal category for religious innovation. |
| فرقه (a newly surfaced risk, not yet flagged in prior artifacts) | فرقه (“sect”) is the term used in official Iranian state and clerical rhetoric to describe minority and unrecognized religious groups — most pointedly in the recurring phrase فرقه ضالّه (“misguided/deviant sect”), historically applied to the Baha’i community and, in some state and seminary discourse, extended rhetorically to unregistered evangelical house-church networks themselves. Using فرقه for 2 Peter’s false teachers would risk the translation appearing to borrow the same stigmatizing vocabulary currently deployed against the letter’s own intended Iranian readership. فرقه must be explicitly avoided throughout 2 Peter 2, in addition to the already-rejected بدعت. |
| ضلالت (more intense Quranic “going astray” than گمراهی) | Available as an intensifier but not recommended as the default; reserve for occasional stylistic variation only, never as the primary rendering, to avoid over-Quranicizing the polemic. |
| معلم دروغین, تعلیم انحرافی, هلاکت, بیخدایی, توهین کردن | Retained per glossary. |
Recommended strategy: Confirm and extend the glossary’s بدعت rejection to also formally reject فرقه (new fencing rule). Use تعلیم انحرافی / معلم دروغین consistently; frame ch. 2 explicitly and repeatedly as an in-house warning about deceivers “among you” (2:1), never as commentary applicable to any named external religious community.
1.4 The Certainty of Christ’s Return
| Candidate | Weakness |
|---|---|
| ظهور (zohur) | Already rejected — the exact technical term for the Hidden Twelfth Imam’s ghaybat-o-zohur (occultation/reappearance) doctrine. |
| رجعت (raj’a — a newly surfaced risk) | رجعت denotes a separate but related Twelver doctrine: the eschatological return of certain past figures (in some strands including Imam Hussein and other Imams) alongside or before the Mahdi’s advent. Though less universally central than ظهور/انتظار, رجعت remains a live technical term in Shia eschatological literature and must also be avoided as a rendering for παρουσία, alongside ظهور. |
| انتظار (entezar) | Reserved exclusively for teaching-note contrastive use per the registry; not used in the base translation of προσδοκάω. |
| بازگشت, منتظر بودن | Retained per glossary/registry as the working translations, with mandatory contrastive teaching notes at every occurrence. |
Recommended strategy: Formally add رجعت to the rejected-terms list alongside ظهور for παρουσία (update translation memory accordingly in Phase 2 setup). This doctrine occupies the single most crowded neighborhood in the entire letter — four distinct Persian/Shia technical terms (ظهور, انتظار, رجعت, and the popular compound ظهور امام زمان) all describe structurally similar “awaited future arrival of a hidden/departed holy figure” concepts, and 2 Peter uses the same narrative shape (a promise now delayed, mocked by skeptics, certain to be fulfilled) that Twelver apologetics uses for the Mahdi. Christ’s return must be taught as already inaugurated (by the historical resurrection/ascension already witnessed, 1:16-18) and therefore categorically different in kind, not degree, from an as-yet-unrevealed hidden figure.
1.5 The Day of the Lord and Final Judgment
| Candidate | Weakness |
|---|---|
| روز قیامت (Rooz-e Qiyamat) | Rejected — imports the full Islamic Yawm al-Qiyamah apparatus (bodily resurrection assembly, mizan, sirat bridge), already flagged Critical at the baseline level under “resurrection.” |
| میزان (mizan — deeds-weighing scale) | Not currently used anywhere in the 2 Peter glossary, and should stay that way; judgment imagery in 2:3-9 and 3:7 must not acquire this specific apparatus by association even though “judgment” (κρίσις → داوری) is a shared broad category. |
| حساب و کتاب (day of reckoning) | A common Quranic/Persian idiom for the final accounting; usable in general conversation but should not become the fixed technical rendering, to avoid pulling in its full Islamic reckoning-and-recording-angels apparatus (کراماً کاتبین). |
| روز خداوند, داوری | Retained per glossary/registry. |
Recommended strategy: No missing vocabulary; the gap is entirely one of apparatus-avoidance. روز خداوند and داوری are lexically adequate and already correctly chosen; translators must resist the natural pull, when expanding judgment imagery in chapter 2’s flood/Sodom/angels examples, to reach for reckoning-and-scales vocabulary that would silently re-import the very apparatus the base term was chosen to avoid.
1.6 Patience of God’s Timing
| Candidate | Weakness |
|---|---|
| صبر (sabr) | Not rejected outright but demoted — Islam’s, and especially Shia Ashura piety’s, central virtue of patient endurance under suffering, paradigmatically Imam Hussein’s household at Karbala. Since μακροθυμία in 2 Peter 3:9,15 describes God’s own forbearance (not human suffering-endurance), صبر risks importing the wrong referent (human patient suffering) rather than the right one (divine patient delay of judgment). |
| حلیم / حلم (al-Halim, “the Forbearing,” one of the divine names) | A genuinely promising bridge not yet incorporated into the glossary — al-Halim is an already-recognized Quranic divine attribute closely paralleling μακροθυμία’s sense of God’s patient forbearance. Available as a supplementary teaching-note bridge (“even as your own tradition names God al-Halim, so…”) but not recommended as the base translation, since it would introduce a discrete Quranic divine-names framework into the running text. |
| بردباری الهی, تاخیر کردن | Retained per glossary. |
Recommended strategy: Confirm بردباری الهی over صبر as already decided. Recommend حلم/الحلیم be recorded as an available apologetic bridge for teaching notes only (not for translation memory), since it strengthens rather than dilutes the doctrine when used contrastively in supplementary material.
1.7 Divine Nature and Escaping Corruption
| Candidate | Weakness |
|---|---|
| شریک | Already rejected — root of shirk. |
| فنا / وحدت الوجود concepts (Sufi self-annihilation / ontological unity) | Not directly nameable by a single glossary term but the deepest doctrinal risk in the whole letter: 2 Peter 1:4’s θείας φύσεως κοινωνοί is the one verse in the entire curriculum most vulnerable to a full Sufi mystical-union misreading, since fana’s devotional vocabulary (the drop merging into the ocean, the moth consumed by the flame) describes exactly the kind of “becoming one with the Divine” that 1:4 must NOT be read as teaching. |
| فیض-style emanationism (Illuminationist/Sadraean) | The baseline’s own grace/feyz caution recurs here with added force, since “partaking of the divine nature” is even closer in surface shape to emanationist ontology than “grace” is. |
| طبیعت الهی, بهرهمند/سهیم, فساد | Retained per glossary. |
Recommended strategy: This is the single most linguistically hazardous doctrine in the curriculum because it sits at the convergence of three separate indigenous Persian religious-philosophical systems simultaneously (tawhid/shirk concern shared with all Islam; Sufi fana/wahdat al-wujud; Illuminationist/Sadraean emanationism already flagged for feyz) rather than colliding with only one. No lexical substitution resolves this; every occurrence of 1:4 requires an explicit theologian-authored teaching note distinguishing moral/relational participation in God’s character from ontological merger, absorption, or emanative overflow — see Ranked Risk #3 below.
2. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods
2.1 Crowded neighborhoods requiring active fencing
These are cases where Persian has too many candidate terms, several of which are theologically loaded in ways that would silently import unwanted doctrinal content if selected by default.
| Semantic space | Competing terms | Term retained | Terms fenced out (must never be substituted) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge of God | معرفت, علم, شناخت, عرفان | شناخت | معرفت (Sufi ma’refat; Shia ma’refat al-Imam), عرفان (mysticism as a named discipline) |
| Christ’s future coming | ظهور, رجعت, بازگشت, انتظار | بازگشت (+ منتظر بودن for waiting) | ظهور, رجعت (both Twelver-specific); انتظار reserved for contrastive notes only |
| Cleansing/purity | تطهیر, تزکیه, پاک شدن, تقدیس | پاک شدن (+ تقدیس for sanctification) | تطهیر (ritual purification / Ayat al-Tathir); تزکیه (Quranic/Sufi self-purification of the soul, not previously flagged — add to rejected list for καθαρισμός) |
| Master/absolute owner | مولا, ارباب, سید, خداوند | ارباب | مولا (Ghadir Khumm/Imamate); سید (honorific for Muhammad’s descendants — not previously flagged; avoid as a Christological title even in informal paraphrase) |
| Heresy/deviant teaching | بدعت, فرقه, ضلالت, تعلیم انحرافی | تعلیم انحرافی (+ گمراهی for error) | بدعت, فرقه (state-rhetoric collision, §1.3 above) |
| Godliness/piety | تقوا, خداترسی, دینداری | خداترسی | تقوا (Quranic virtue-category); دینداری (“religiosity” — too institutional/generic, loses the reverent-fear component) |
| Patient endurance | صبر, بردباری, استقامت, حلم | بردباری الهی (divine); استقامت (human, ch. 1) | صبر (Ashura/Karbala suffering-endurance connotation) kept out of the base translation; حلم reserved for apologetic bridge notes only |
2.2 Genuinely missing vocabulary requiring compound coinage or paraphrase
Unlike the crowded-neighborhood cases above, these concepts have no existing Persian theological term at all — not even a risky one — and require constructing a compound or paraphrase from ordinary vocabulary:
- φερόμενοι, “carried along” (1:21) — no single Persian verb captures the nautical image of a ship driven by wind while its human pilot remains actively engaged. The compound هدایت شدن (توسط روحالقدس) is a workable paraphrase but loses the vividness of the maritime metaphor entirely; Phase 2 should consider a footnote restoring the ship/wind image explicitly rather than relying on the verb alone.
- ἰσότιμος πίστις, “equally precious faith” (1:1) — ایمان همارزش is a modern legal/bureaucratic compound (همارزش is standard in equivalency-certificate and legal-parity contexts in contemporary Persian) pressed into theological service; it is accurate but tonally borrowed from a secular register. Flag for native-speaker register review — an alternative more devotional-register paraphrase (e.g., ایمانی که همه در آن یکساناند) may be preferable in liturgical or devotional (as opposed to expository) material.
- μεγαλοπρεπὴς δόξα, “Majestic Glory” (1:17) — جلال عظیم is a defensible compound but is not an attested fixed circumlocution-title in existing Persian Christian literature (Tarjome Ghadeem/Mojdeh); it is being freshly coined for this curriculum and should carry a translator’s note on first occurrence identifying it as a reverent stand-in for “God the Father.”
- θείας φύσεως κοινωνοί as a full doctrinal unit (1:4) — as discussed in §1.7, the individual words exist but the doctrine itself (creaturely, non-merging participation in divine character) has no prior indigenous Persian theological slot; this must be built through teaching apparatus, not solved by vocabulary alone.
- καινοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ γῆν καινήν, “new heavens and new earth” (3:13) — آسمانهای جدید و زمین جدید is a plain, workable descriptive compound, but unlike Islamic paradise imagery (which has centuries of devotional poetic elaboration to draw on), this phrase has no existing devotional resonance in Persian religious literature to lend it emotional weight. Recommend supplementary devotional/homiletic material (not the base translation itself) to build this resonance over time.
- ταρταρόω, “cast into Tartarus” (2:4) — a unique NT term borrowed from Greek mythology with no biblical-Hebrew or Quranic equivalent at all; correctly resolved by the registry as a generic دوزخ rather than either transliterating a meaningless Greek proper noun or borrowing the Quran-specific هاویه (see §3 below).
- δεσπότης vs. κύριος distinction (2:1 vs. throughout) — Persian, like most target languages, has no single word pairing that preserves Greek’s despotes/kyrios distinction (absolute ownership vs. supreme authority) as cleanly as the source text does; ارباب/خداوند is the best available pairing but the nuance that despotes is the stronger, more absolute term is a genuine gap requiring an explanatory note rather than a lexical solution.
3. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions
| Term | Decision | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Balaam (Βαλαάμ) | Transliterate — بلعام | Established, Quranically-recognized proper name; no doctrinal content carried by the sound itself. |
| Sodom and Gomorrah | Transliterate — سدوم و عموره | Proper names; low risk, shared narrative background (people of Lut). |
| Paul (Παῦλος) | Transliterate — پولس | Per requirements-document proper-name convention, consistent with baseline. |
| Jesus / Christ / Lord / God | Transliterate/retain established forms — عیسی / مسیح / خداوند / خدا | Baseline reuse; non-negotiable per translation memory. |
| Tartarus (ταρταρόω) | Paraphrase, do NOT transliterate — به دوزخ افکندن | A transliterated تارتاروس would be meaningless jargon to a Persian reader; borrowing the Quran-specific هاویه would wrongly import that text’s own eschatological topography. Native دوزخ carries the general underworld/hell sense without either problem. |
| Morning star (φωσφόρος) | Paraphrase, do NOT transliterate the planet name — ستاره صبح | Transliterating/naming the planet Venus (زهره/ناهید, Zohreh/Nahid) would import pre-Islamic Persian astral-mythology associations (Zohreh as a goddess-figure in Persian mythological tradition) entirely foreign to Peter’s messianic image. |
| παρουσία (parousia) | Paraphrase, do NOT transliterate — بازگشت | A transliteration (پاروسیا) would read as opaque academic jargon and, more importantly, would dodge rather than resolve the doctrinal collision the term must actively engage; a meaningful Persian word is required precisely so the contrast with ظهور/رجعت can be taught. |
| ἐπίγνωσις / γνῶσις (knowledge) | Calque, do NOT transliterate as “gnosis” — شناخت | Transliterating “gnosis” would be doubly wrong: meaningless to most readers, and for theologically literate readers would invite confusion with the early-church heresy of Gnosticism, an entirely unrelated false association. |
| δεσπότης (despotes) | Paraphrase, do NOT use honorific transliteration — ارباب | مولا (the natural honorific transliteration-equivalent register) is explicitly rejected per the Ghadir Khumm collision; ارباب preserves the ownership sense in plain, non-honorific vocabulary. |
| φέρω / φερόμενοι | Compound paraphrase, no single-word equivalent exists — هدایت شدن (توسط روحالقدس) | See §2.2; genuine gap requiring construction rather than a ready-made equivalent. |
| Amen, Hallelujah (established doctrinal proper-noun precedent, no 2 Peter occurrence but relevant methodological note) | Transliterate — آمین, هللویاه | Per the Romans requirements document’s existing convention; the same treatment should extend to any future untranslatable liturgical exclamations in 2 Peter-adjacent materials (none occur in the letter itself). |
General principle governing this letter: transliteration is reserved strictly for (a) proper names with no doctrinal content, and (b) the small closed set of already-established liturgical exclamations. Every theologically loaded term is paraphrased or calqued into ordinary/compound Persian vocabulary specifically chosen to avoid triggering an existing Islamic or Persian-indigenous technical term — the opposite instinct from transliteration’s usual purpose of preserving foreign flavor. This is consistent with, and extends, the baseline Romans package’s own consistent preference for meaningful native/compound renderings (خداوند, ناموس, عدالت) over loan-word transliteration.
4. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities in 2 Peter
Ranked by combined weight of (a) doctrinal centrality to the letter’s argument, (b) severity of the specific Iranian/Shia collision, and (c) frequency of occurrence across the letter.
-
παρουσία / “coming” — Critical (1:16; 3:4, 12, plus the closely bound προσδοκάω “waiting for” at 3:12-14). The single highest-density collision zone in the letter: four separate live Twelver technical terms (ظهور, رجعت, انتظار, and the popular compound ظهور امام زمان) all describe structurally similar “awaited return of a hidden/departed holy figure” concepts. Requires mandatory theologian review and explicit contrastive teaching notes at every occurrence, not just the first.
-
προσδοκάω / “waiting for, looking for” (3:12-14). Inseparable in practice from #1 but ranked separately because انتظار’s devotional centrality (dar entezar-e Imam Zaman shapes personal names, mosque architecture, daily practice) makes this arguably the single most culturally saturating collision in the entire curriculum, independent of the coming/parousia lexical choice itself.
-
θείας φύσεως κοινωνοί / “partakers of the divine nature” (1:4). Uniquely dangerous because it converges three separate indigenous systems (tawhid/shirk; Sufi fana/wahdat al-wujud; Illuminationist/Sadraean emanationism) rather than one; a single mistranslated preposition or verb here could read as either idolatrous partnership (shirk) or mystical self-annihilation (fana) — opposite errors, both catastrophic, both plausible misreadings of a careless rendering.
-
φέρω (φερόμενοι) / “carried along by the Spirit” (1:21). The letter’s own doctrinal center of gravity for the core passage (1:16-21); must exclude the wahy mechanical-dictation model while still affirming genuine divine authorship — a fine theological line with no ready-made Persian phrase, only a constructed compound.
-
δεσπότης / “Master, Sovereign Lord” (2:1). A single wrong word choice (مولا instead of ارباب) would directly invoke the Ghadir Khumm tradition and the entire doctrinal foundation of the Imamate — arguably the most acute single-word substitution risk in the letter, even though its frequency (one occurrence) is lower than others on this list.
-
ἐπίγνωσις / γνῶσις / “knowledge” (1:2, 3, 8; 2:20; 3:18). High frequency (appears in the letter’s opening, its programmatic 1:3 statement, and its closing doxology) compounds a Critical-tier collision with معرفت into a structurally central, repeated risk — every recurrence is a fresh opportunity for drift back toward the more “natural”-sounding but doctrinally wrong معرفت.
-
καθαρισμός / “purification” (1:9). The Quran 33:33 Ayat al-Tathir connection gives this single occurrence outsized weight, since it touches the Shia doctrine of the Imams’ unique purity (Panj Tan-e Pak) — a single occurrence but a very deep well of associated devotional practice (shrine visitation, ziyarat texts) behind it.
-
αἱρέσεις ἀπωλείας / “destructive heresies” and the broader ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι polemic of ch. 2. Compounded risk: بدعت (already rejected) plus the newly surfaced فρقه/فرقه ضالّه state-rhetoric collision (§1.3) means the entire chapter’s polemical vocabulary must be constructed from a narrower-than-usual set of safe words, raising the risk of accidental drift into a rejected term across a long, emotionally charged chapter.
-
ἡμέρα κυρίου / “Day of the Lord” (3:10). Critical-tier by design (deliberately built apart from روز قیامت), but ranked below the above because the base lexical choice is already well-secured; the residual risk is downstream — translators expanding judgment/reckoning imagery elsewhere in ch. 2-3 accidentally re-importing mizan/reckoning apparatus vocabulary that was never present in the base term itself.
-
στρεβλόω / “twist, distort” (3:16). Uniquely double-edged: this is literally the tahrif word, and while the registry rightly treats this as a deliberate engagement opportunity rather than a risk to avoid, it is ranked here because mishandling the accompanying teaching note (failing to clearly distinguish “false teachers twisting Paul’s letters” from “the Bible generally being corrupted”) would actively reinforce, rather than rebut, the single most common Islamic objection to the Christian Bible’s reliability.
-
σωτήρ, “our God and Savior” grammatical unity (1:1). A syntactic, not merely lexical, gap: the Greek’s Granville-Sharp-type construction forces a single-referent reading (“our God and Savior, Jesus Christ”) that Persian’s own appositional/izafe structures do not automatically preserve. Translators must deliberately construct the Persian sentence (e.g., using a restrictive appositional comma structure binding خدا و نجاتدهندهٔ ما directly to عیسی مسیح) to prevent an ambiguous reading that splits this into two referents (“God, and also the Savior Jesus Christ”) — a genuine Deity-of-Christ risk located in sentence-level syntax rather than a single word choice.
-
εὐσέβεια / “godliness” (1:6-7; 3:11). Ranked lower than the above because خداترسی is already a secure, non-colliding choice, but flagged for the ranked list because of its high load-bearing role across the letter’s central ethical exhortation (the 1:5-7 virtue chain) combined with the ever-present temptation, in less careful downstream materials (sermons, study questions, devotionals built on this translation), to reach for the far more “natural”-sounding but rejected تقوا.
This document should be read alongside 08_core_glossary.md (binding term-by-term decisions) and assets/bible_term_registry.json (registry entries with full definitions and notes). Any term newly flagged here as requiring rejection (فرقه, رجعت, تزکیه, سید as a Christological title) should be formally added to the 2 Peter translation memory update before Phase 2 segment translation begins.