Linguistic Gap Analysis: 1 Corinthians — English/Greek → Sanskrit

0. Method and Scope

This analysis executes PRD Phase 1 Step 8 for 1 Corinthians. It does not re-derive terms already fixed by the Romans baseline (translation_memory.json) or newly assigned in 08_core_glossary.md / bible_term_registry.json; it instead asks, for the doctrine list of this curriculum, three structural questions that the term-by-term glossary format cannot fully surface:

1. Vocabulary matrix: for each doctrine, what Sanskrit terms are available at all, what is structurally wrong with each, and what is the recommended fencing/redefinition strategy?
2. Gap topology: which concepts have no native Sanskrit vessel at all (genuine lexical gaps, requiring coinage or transliteration) versus which concepts have too many competing, already-theorized vessels, each claimed by a rival darśana (crowded semantic neighborhoods, requiring fencing rather than invention)?
3. Transliteration vs. paraphrase: on what principled basis does this Language Package decide to transliterate (क्रूशः, बप्तिस्मः, मारान् अथा) versus construct a descriptive Sanskrit compound (देवप्रतिमाभ्यः निवेदितं मांसम्, पुत्रत्वेन स्वीकरणम्)?

As established in the Romans baseline, Sanskrit’s risk profile is categorically different from a vernacular Language Package: nearly every candidate term is already a precise, citable technical term within a developed darśana (Nyāya, Mīmāṃsā, Sāṅkhya-Yoga, Advaita/Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta) or within Purāṇic/Āgamic devotional theology, rather than a loosely-connoted cultural-background word. Gap analysis here is therefore an exercise in locating pre-existing conceptual real estate and deciding whether to fence it, repurpose it, or bypass it by transliteration — rarely a case of coining an entirely novel word into a vocabulary vacuum.

---

1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

For each of this curriculum’s ten doctrines, the matrix records: the doctrine’s key Sanskrit term(s) already assigned; the specific classical-school weakness each carries; and the recommended mitigation strategy (mandatory redefinition, fencing compound, transliteration, or contrastive citation).

1.1 The Resurrection of Christ and Believers

Available term	Weakness	Recommended strategy
पुनरुत्थानम् (punarutthānam)	None inherent — coined precisely to avoid the crowded neighborhood below — but readers will reflexively scan for a transmigration referent given the density of competing vocabulary nearby (बीज, प्राकृत/आत्मिक, अविनाशी).	Retain; pair with perfect/resultative Sanskrit verb forms (पुनरुत्थितः अस्ति) at 15:4 to lock in the once-for-all, non-repeatable sense against a simple-past reading that could imply recurrence.
पुनर्जन्म (rejected)	Sāṅkhya-Yoga’s karmāśaya/vāsanā doctrine and Vedānta’s liṅga-śarīra (subtle body transmigration) — a fully theorized mechanism, not folk belief.	FORBIDDEN. Never use.
बीजम् उप्यते (seed sown, 15:36-38)	बीज is Yoga/Sāṅkhya’s technical karma-bīja/vāsanā-bīja, the literal mechanism of rebirth.	Mandatory note at 15:36 fixing the referent as same organism, transformed state, not a karmic residue germinating a different future embodiment.
प्राकृतः / आत्मिकः (natural/spiritual body, 15:44-46)	Directly reuses Sāṅkhya’s prakṛti-puruṣa dualism and आत्मन्’s Advaitic weight.	Mandatory redefinition at every occurrence in ch.15; never let “spiritual body” imply Self-realization of ātman=Brahman.
विनाशी / अविनाशी (perishable/imperishable)	अक्षरम् (rejected alternative) is Gītā 8.3/8.21’s and Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad’s term for the imperishable Absolute.	FORBIDDEN: never अक्षरम्. Keep विनाशी/अविनाशी strictly predicated of the body, not an Absolute-category claim.

This is the doctrinal center of the entire book and of this curriculum’s core passage. Every one of the five terms feeding it independently touches a different classical school’s transmigration/liberation apparatus. No single fencing note suffices; a cumulative glossary note bundle should accompany 1 Corinthians 15 as a unit (see §4 below), not term-by-term footnotes alone.

1.2 Christian Unity versus Factionalism

Available term	Weakness	Recommended strategy
भेदः / विभेदः (division)	Live philosophical term in Vedāntic bheda-abheda debate (the ontological status of difference between jīva and Brahman).	Always compound as मण्डलीभेदः (“church-division”) to anchor the sense socially, never metaphysically.
मण्डली (church)	None significant — deliberately chosen to avoid मन्दिरम्/मठः.	Retain; no new risk from this doctrine specifically.
कलहः (strife)	None.	Retain as-is; Low risk.

This doctrine is comparatively vocabulary-poor in a good way — Sanskrit has no rival technical apparatus specifically for intra-community factionalism along teacher-loyalty lines, so the main risk is the single crowded-neighborhood item (भेद) rather than a systemic gap.

1.3 The Cross as Wisdom and Power

Available term	Weakness	Recommended strategy
क्रूशः (cross, transliteration-coinage)	None as a bare object-noun; risk is entirely in its antithetical co-occurrence with the next two terms.	Retain established Serampore transliteration.
प्रज्ञा (wisdom)	Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad’s prājña (cognizer-state of dreamless sleep, third of four consciousness-states with viśva/taijasa/turīya) and Buddhist prajñā-pāramitā — both fully theorized liberating-insight categories.	Mandatory redefinition at every 1:17-2:13 occurrence: God’s wisdom revealed in a historical, scandalous death, not an attainment reached through contemplative ascent.
सामर्थ्यम् (power of God)	Weak on its own (correctly the least-encumbered available term), but always appears paired antithetically with प्रज्ञा in this section, so both terms’ cautions must be triggered together.	Treat 1:18-2:5 as a single fenced unit; a note addressing both terms jointly is more effective than two separate footnotes.
मौर्ख्यम् (foolishness)	None inherent.	Retain; risk lies in its pairing with प्रज्ञा, not the word itself.

1.4 Church Discipline and Holiness

Available term	Weakness	Recommended strategy
शैतानाय समर्पणम् (hand over to Satan)	No native category; nearest structural analogue, jāti-cyuti (caste-expulsion) under dharmaśāstra, is punitive/permanent, not remedial.	Explicit contrastive note every occurrence: remedial and restoration-aimed, not a permanent status sanction.
किण्वम् / अकिण्वितम् (leaven/unleavened)	No native ritual-calendar referent; risk of assimilation to unrelated dharmaśāstra food-purity taboo categories (śuddhi/āśauca).	Mandatory Exodus 12/Passover background note, parallel to “seed of David” treatment in Romans baseline.
व्यभिचारः (sexual immorality)	Risk that पापम् generally (per Romans baseline) reads as a category resolved by prescribed prāyaścitta penance.	Reinforce baseline caution: church discipline addresses moral transgression before a personal God, not ritual-penance-resolvable impurity.
पवित्रम् / पवित्रीकरणम् (holy/sanctification)	Vedic ritual-purity root sense (kuśa-grass soma-strainer) — already flagged Critical/High in Romans baseline.	No new mitigation beyond baseline; reapply mandatory redefinition at each 1 Cor occurrence (esp. 7:14’s household-holiness extension).

1.5 Marriage and Singleness

Available term	Weakness	Recommended strategy
विवाहः (marriage)	None significant.	Retain.
अविवाहित्वम् (singleness)	ब्रह्मचर्यम् (rejected) is a formally defined varṇāśrama life-stage (first āśrama, preceding marriage, with its own vows/social status) — not a permanent freely-chosen alternative to marriage.	FORBIDDEN: never ब्रह्मचर्यम् for Paul’s teaching. Use the descriptive negative अविवाहित्वम् exclusively.
आत्मसंयमः (self-control)	Patañjali’s संयम (Yoga Sūtra 3.4) is a specific technical three-fold practice (dhāraṇā-dhyāna-samādhi combined) aimed at siddhi-attainment.	Mandatory note distinguishing ordinary sexual/appetitive self-governance from the yogic technical discipline.
कुमारी (virgin)	None.	Retain; Low risk.

Structural gap note: Sanskrit’s dominant framework for organizing sexual/marital status is the four-āśrama life-stage system (brahmacarya → gṣhastha → vānaprastha → sannyāsa), a sequential, socially institutionalized progression. Paul’s teaching in ch.7 presents marriage and singleness as parallel, freely chosen, individually discerned vocations rather than stages in a single prescribed sequence. This is a genuine structural mismatch, not merely a word-choice problem — no compound rescues it; only an explanatory frame at the chapter level (not just the term level) can convey it.

1.6 Christian Liberty and Idol Meat

Available term	Weakness	Recommended strategy
देवप्रतिमाभ्यः निवेदितं मांसम् (food offered to idols)	Structurally identical to Hindu naivedya/prasāda practice: food ritually presented to an image, then distributed to and eaten by worshippers as a consecrated gift.	Single highest ritual-collision point in the book (see §3 ranked list, #1). Mandatory explicit theological mediation at every occurrence — never presented as a simple lexical equivalence.
प्रतिमा / देवप्रतिमा (idol)	मूर्तिः/विग्रहः (rejected) are positively-valenced consecrated-image terms implying real divine presence via pratiṣṭhā (Āgamic consecration).	Note every occurrence: Paul’s polemic concerns the idol’s unreality as a rival deity, not a doctrinal verdict on mūrti-pūjā practice as such.
अन्तःकरणम् (conscience)	Sāṅkhya/Vedānta’s composite cognitive-instrument complex (manas-buddhi-ahaṅkāra/citta) — primarily an epistemic apparatus, not a moral guilt/innocence faculty.	Mandatory redefinition: “the faculty of moral self-judgment before God,” distinct from its ordinary cognitive-apparatus sense.
ज्ञानम् (knowledge)	Shares प्रज्ञा’s exposure to jñāna-mārga’s sufficiency-for-liberation claim.	Note the subordination structure (8:1, 13:2,8) as the specific point of contrast: knowledge here is valuable but insufficient and must yield to love — the reverse of jñāna-mārga’s ranking.

1.7 The Lord’s Supper

Available term	Weakness	Recommended strategy
प्रभुभोजनम् (Lord’s Supper)	None inherent; risk is external (confusion with ch.10’s rhetorical “table of the Lord”).	Keep terminologically distinct from the ch.10 polemical usage — see §2 crowded-neighborhood note.
स्मरणम् (remembrance)	श्राद्धम् (rejected) is the fully-elaborated Hindu ancestral memorial-rite category (piṇḍa rice-ball offerings on fixed calendrical occasions for the deceased’s postmortem welfare).	FORBIDDEN: never श्राद्धम् or cognates. The Supper proclaims a completed atoning death for the living community’s benefit, not a rite securing a deceased ancestor’s postmortem state — opposite temporal/beneficiary structure.
नवसंविद् (new covenant)	No native covenant-renewal ritual category exists in Sanskrit; risk of assimilation to a general vow (vrata).	Mandatory OT covenant-background explanation (Jeremiah 31; Exodus 24) at 11:25.
सहभागिता (fellowship, extended to 10:16-20)	Risk of importing ritual-communion technicality that would blur the deliberate “fellowship with demons” polemical contrast.	Keep सहभागिता itself doctrinally thin (mere “shared participation”); let the object of participation (Christ vs. demons) carry the theological weight.

1.8 Spiritual Gifts and the Body of Christ

Available term	Weakness	Recommended strategy
आत्मिकं वरदानम् (spiritual gifts)	सिद्धिः (rejected) is Yoga Sūtra 3’s catalogued eightfold yogic supernatural attainments, earned through disciplined practice.	Retain baseline caution; reinforce at 12:1-31 given density of occurrence.
ख्रीष्टस्य शरीरम् / अङ्गानि (body of Christ)	Closely echoes Puruṣasūkta (Ṛgveda 10.90.11-12), the foundational varṇa-origin-from-cosmic-body myth (brāhmaṇa from mouth, kṣatriya from arms, vaiśya from thighs, śūdra from feet) — a mythic charter for ranked social hierarchy.	Mandatory contrastive note at every occurrence: Paul’s metaphor dissolves rather than grounds hierarchy, arguing for equal indispensability regardless of function (12:22-24) — the opposite trajectory from the Puruṣasūkta’s default resonance for a Sanskrit-literate reader.
आत्मनां विवेकः (discerning of spirits)	Bare plural आत्मानः risks appearing to posit multiple “holy spirits.”	Use periphrasis (utterance from a true/false आत्मिक source) rather than bare plural.
भाषाः / जिह्वाभाषा (tongues)	Risk of assimilation to (a) Vedic Vāc-theology/śabda-brahman (eternal, uncreated sound-form of the Veda per Mīmāṃsā) or (b) mantra requiring precise phonetic performance for efficacy regardless of comprehension.	Frame as intelligible-but-untaught human/angelic sign-speech for edification (14:1-25), never eternal cosmic sound or ritually-efficacious mantra.

1.9 Love as the Greater Way

Available term	Weakness	Recommended strategy
प्रेम (love)	Central technical term of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava prema-bhakti theology (Rūpa Gosvāmī’s rasa-śāstra), culminating in mādhurya-rasa — Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa erotic-devotional love as the paradigm of highest divine-human love.	Mandatory note at 13:1 distinguishing willed, active, conduct-defined self-giving love (13:4-7’s verb-list) from prema-bhakti’s aesthetic-emotional rasa framework. Retained over rejected प्रीतिः/स्नेहः (weaker, natural-affection-bound) for established Christian-Sanskrit precedent, but this is the highest-stakes retained term in the whole curriculum outside chapter 15.
दर्पणे रहस्यरूपेण (mirror, dimly — 13:12)	Superficial resemblance to Advaitic māyā (illusory/provisionally-real phenomenal reflection).	Never render with माया or cognates; Paul’s claim is purely epistemic (partial vs. complete knowledge), not ontological (real vs. illusory).

1.10 Order in Worship

Available term	Weakness	Recommended strategy
शिरः / शिरस्त्वम् (headship)	Risk of importing an unrelated ontological/varṇa-style worth-ranking onto what is a relational-order (source/authority) image.	Flag per AI-instructions’ government/authority sensitivity category; render as relational-order, not worth-ranking.
आवरणम् / अनावृतः (head covering)	Honor/shame cultural content, not a doctrinal collision per se.	Flag for cultural-metaphor sensitivity review, not theologian-tier Critical/High review.
प्रतिरूपम् (image of God, 11:7)	Must be kept lexically walled off from प्रतिमा (idol).	Never substitute प्रतिमा here — same English word “image,” opposite theological valence, deliberately different Sanskrit lexemes.
अव्यवस्था / शान्तिः (disorder/peace, 14:33)	शान्तिः’s baseline yogic citta-vṛtti-nirodha risk is present but secondary here.	Keep the relational-communal (orderly worship flowing from God’s character) sense primary over the meditative-psychological sense.

---

2. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods

The two failure modes require opposite mitigation strategies and must not be treated identically. A genuine gap is solved by coinage or transliteration; a crowded neighborhood is solved by fencing (explicit contrastive redefinition) or, where fencing cannot hold, forbidding the term outright.

2.1 Genuine Lexical Gaps (no native Sanskrit category exists)

Concept	Why no native category exists	Resolution
New covenant ordinance (Lord’s Supper)	No Sanskrit ritual-calendar or sacramental category combines memorial of a completed historical death + ongoing communal meal + forward-looking hope.	Descriptive compound प्रभुभोजनम् + मandatory background note; no transliteration needed since the referent is describable, just uninstantiated.
Passover-derived leaven imagery	No Sanskrit festival-calendar category maps onto the Exodus 12 narrative.	किण्वम्/अकिण्वितम् (plain descriptive terms) + mandatory Exodus background note.
Davidic-covenant-style royal lineage promise (carried over from Romans, recurs implicitly at 15:24-25’s messianic kingdom language)	No analogous royal-covenant concept in classical Sanskrit political/religious literature.	Retain Romans baseline treatment; background explanation required, not lexical substitution.
Church as trans-ethnic, trans-varṇa single body (12:12-27; 1:23-24 Jew/Greek)	No native Sanskrit social-body metaphor exists that is not the Puruṣasūkta’s hierarchy-grounding myth.	This is a crowded neighborhood disguised as a gap — see §2.2 below; there is no neutral “body” metaphor to borrow instead, so the existing (hierarchical) one must be explicitly inverted by note rather than replaced.
Christian baptismal initiation as a non-guru-mediated rite	Sanskrit’s only developed initiation-vocabulary (dīkṣā) is guru-mediated and mantra-transmission-based.	Resolved by transliteration (बप्तिस्मः) rather than by strained paraphrase — see §3.

2.2 Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods (too many, already-claimed candidate terms)

These are the higher-frequency failure mode in this curriculum, consistent with the Romans baseline’s overall finding that Sanskrit’s problem is usually surplus of already-theorized vocabulary, not deficit.

English/Greek concept	Competing Sanskrit claimants	School(s) claiming each	Fencing strategy
wisdom / knowledge (σοφία, γνῶσις)	प्रज्ञा, ज्ञानम्, विद्या	Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad (prājña state); Buddhist prajñā-pāramitā; Upaniṣadic para-/apara-vidyā distinction; jñāna-mārga generally	प्रज्ञा retained as least-bad; ज्ञानम् retained for γνῶσις specifically because its subordination to love (8:1; 13:2,8) is itself the fencing device — the doctrinal move, not just a footnote, does the fencing work.
natural/spiritual person or body (ψυχικός/πνευματικός)	प्राकृतः / आत्मिकः	Sāṅkhya-Yoga prakṛti-puruṣa dualism; Advaita ātman-Brahman identity	No available substitute avoids this collision entirely — mandatory per-occurrence redefinition is the only viable fence, not term substitution.
self-control (ἐγκράτεια)	आत्मसंयमः vs. संयम	Patañjali’s technical three-limbed saṃyama (Yoga Sūtra 3.4)	Deliberately avoid बare संयम; आत्मसंयमः’s compound form itself signals ordinary self-governance rather than the technical yogic practice.
boasting (καύχημα)	गर्वः/श्लाघा vs. अहंकारः	Sāṅkhya’s ahaṅkāra (third tattva-evolute of prakṛti, the ego-principle)	अहंकार forbidden; गर्व/श्लाघा retained as ethically plain vocabulary with no metaphysical claimants.
idol meat / idol (εἰδωλόθυτον, εἴδωλον)	प्रतिमा/देवप्रतिमा vs. मूर्तिः/विग्रहः	Āgamic/Purāṇic consecrated-image theology (pratiṣṭhā, real divine presence)	मूर्ति/विग्रह forbidden; प्रतिमा retained but requires the heaviest mandatory-note burden of any term in this curriculum (see ranked list, #1).
headship (κεφαλή)	शिरः/शिरस्त्वम् vs. an implied varṇa-hierarchy reading	Dharmaśāstra’s varṇa worth-ranking (activated by proximity to the “body” metaphor of ch.12, which readers will have just encountered)	Explicit note distinguishing relational-order from ontological worth-ranking; flagged for cross-referencing with the body-of-Christ note in the same letter.
conscience (συνείδησις)	अन्तःकरणम्	Sāṅkhya-Yoga-Vedānta’s composite cognitive-instrument complex (manas-buddhi-ahaṅkāra-citta)	Redefine as a moral faculty; the term’s normal sense is cognitive, not evaluative — this is a functional shift, not merely a connotation risk.
love (ἀγάπη)	प्रेम vs. प्रीति/स्नेह	Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava prema-bhakti rasa-theology (mādhurya-rasa)	प्रेम retained for established precedent; heaviest fencing note in the “virtue” category of this curriculum.
body-of-Christ unity metaphor (σῶμα Χριστοῦ)	ख्रीष्टस्य शरीरम्/अङ्गानि vs. no neutral alternative	Puruṣasūkta (Ṛg Veda 10.90.11-12) varṇa-origin cosmic-body myth	No lexical substitute exists; the fence must operate at the level of the argument’s direction (equalizing vs. hierarchy-grounding), not word choice.
mirror dimly / partial knowledge (13:12)	दर्पणे रहस्यरूपेण vs. माया-based rendering	Advaita’s māyā doctrine (illusory/provisionally-real phenomenal world)	माया forbidden; current rendering isolates the epistemic sense from any ontological-illusion claim.
resurrection body language: seed, perishable/imperishable, natural/spiritual (ch.15 cluster)	बीजम्, विनाशी/अविनाशी, प्राकृत/आत्मिक — see §1.1	Sāṅkhya-Yoga karma-bīja/vāsanā mechanism; Gītā/Māṇḍūkya akṣara-brahma; prakṛti-puruṣa dualism	Cumulative note bundle at chapter level (see §4), because four separate crowded neighborhoods converge in a fourteen-verse span (15:36-54).

Structural observation: every crowded-neighborhood item above is crowded by a specific, citable classical text or school, exactly matching the categorical framing already established in the Romans baseline (12_ai_translation_requirements.md’s “categorical note”). This curriculum introduces no new type of ambiguity — it inherits the same structural risk profile, concentrated with unusual density in three passages: 1 Corinthians 8/10 (idol meat), 12 (body of Christ), and 15 (resurrection body).

---

3. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase: Decision Framework

3.1 Decision Criteria

A term is transliterated rather than translated with a native Sanskrit compound when:

1. The nearest native equivalent names a specific, incompatible ritual mechanism (not merely a connotation risk) — e.g., दीक्षा’s guru-mediated mantra-transmission structure for baptism, or श्राद्धम्’s ancestor-memorial structure for the Lord’s Supper’s remembrance.
2. The referent is historically/liturgically unique and no paraphrase can avoid implying a general category the referent does not belong to — e.g., Aramaic acclamations (अब्बा, मारान् अथा) whose entire semantic function is untranslatable intimacy/urgency, not propositional content.
3. Established Christian-Sanskrit precedent already exists (Serampore 1808 tradition) and departing from it would break cross-document consistency for no doctrinal gain — e.g., यीशुः, ख्रीष्टः, क्रूशः, बप्तिस्मः, आमीन्, हल्लेलूया.

A term is rendered by descriptive Sanskrit compound (paraphrase) rather than transliterated when:

1. The concept is expressible without importing a rival technical apparatus, even if no single existing word suffices — e.g., पुत्रत्वेन स्वीकरणम् (adoption) avoids दत्तकग्रहणम्’s partial-inheritance rules by full descriptive phrasing rather than borrowing the nearest single word.
2. A plain compound of ordinary (non-technical) Sanskrit roots is available and carries no independent doctrinal history — e.g., देवप्रतिमाभ्यः निवेदितं मांसम् (idol meat), अविवाहित्वम् (singleness), शैतानाय समर्पणम् (hand over to Satan).
3. The audience’s scholarly/liturgical register benefits from transparency of meaning over economy — per the AI Translation Requirements’ preference for “well-attested classical constructions… over novel coinages,” a transparent compound is preferred to an opaque transliteration wherever both are doctrinally safe.

3.2 Decisions Table for This Curriculum’s Contested Cases

Term	Decision	Rationale
baptism (βαπτίζω)	Transliterate: बप्तिस्मः	दीक्षा’s guru/mantra-transmission structure is a genuine mechanism collision, not a connotation risk (§3.1 criterion 1); no paraphrase escapes it without becoming unwieldy across 1:13-17, 10:2, 12:13, 15:29.
cross (σταυρός)	Transliterate: क्रूशः	No native Sanskrit object-word for a Roman execution device exists at all (§2.1 gap); Serampore precedent already established (§3.1 criterion 3).
Lord’s Supper — remembrance (ἀνάμνησις)	Paraphrase: स्मरणम् (plain word), NOT transliteration, and explicitly NOT श्राद्धम्	Unlike baptism, a plain non-technical Sanskrit word (स्मरण, “remembrance/memory”) exists and is doctrinally clean on its own; the risk is a different existing technical word (श्राद्ध) being substituted, not an absence of vocabulary. This is a forbidden-substitution case, not a transliteration case.
idol meat (εἰδωλόθυτον)	Paraphrase: देवप्रतिमाभ्यः निवेदितं मांसम्	Fully describable in ordinary Sanskrit; transliterating would be pointless since the concept (ritual food-offering-then-consumption) has an exact native structural parallel (naivedya/prasāda) that must be engaged and fenced by note, not bypassed.
singleness (ἄγαμος)	Paraphrase: अविवाहित्वम् (negative descriptive), NOT ब्रह्मचर्यम्	ब्रह्मचर्यम् is a specific existing technical term whose entire institutional apparatus (āśrama sequence, vows) is incompatible; the negative descriptive compound sidesteps the apparatus entirely rather than importing and then trying to fence it.
Maranatha, Abba	Transliterate: मारान् अथा, अब्बा	Untranslatable liturgical/relational function (§3.1 criterion 2); precedent from Romans baseline (Abba) extended.
Messiah-adjacent kingdom consummation language (15:24-28)	No transliteration; retain existing baseline compounds (परमेश्वरस्य राज्यम्, वशं गमिष्यति)	Fully expressible in Sanskrit; the risk here is doctrinal precision (subordination language), not lexical availability — a transliteration would not even address the actual risk.
tongues (γλῶσσαι)	Paraphrase: भाषाः / जिह्वाभाषा	Plain descriptive vocabulary available; transliterating a Greek grammatical plural noun would add no doctrinal safety and would obscure the concept behind foreign phonology for no gain.

General pattern: this curriculum transliterates almost exclusively for (a) proper nouns/liturgical exclamations and (b) exactly one ritual-institution term (baptism) where the mechanism-collision is total. Every other high-risk term is handled by descriptive paraphrase plus mandatory contrastive note — consistent with the Romans baseline’s general preference and confirming no departure in method is needed for 1 Corinthians.

---

4. Ranked List of This Letter’s Highest-Risk Ambiguities

Ranked by (a) severity of doctrinal consequence if mistranslated, (b) specificity/citability of the colliding classical source (per this Language Package’s evidentiary standard — diffuse cultural inference does not qualify for Critical/High), and (c) frequency/density of occurrence across the letter.

1. Idol meat / idol (εἰδωλόθυτον, εἴδωλον) — 1 Cor 8, 10, 12:2. Structurally identical to live naivedya/prasāda ritual practice; Paul’s own permissive conclusion (10:25) is the single most exploitable sentence in the letter if transplanted into a live Hindu devotional context without mediation. Highest risk because the collision is practical/liturgical, not merely conceptual — a misreading could be enacted, not just believed.

2. Resurrection-body cluster: seed/perishable-imperishable/natural-spiritual (1 Cor 15:35-54). Four independently crowded neighborhoods (karma-bīja mechanism; akṣara-brahma; prakṛti-puruṣa dualism; ātman-Brahman identity) converge in nineteen verses at the letter’s doctrinal climax and this curriculum’s core passage’s direct sequel. No single fencing note can cover the density; requires a chapter-level cumulative note bundle, not per-term footnotes alone.

3. The Son’s subjection to the Father (1 Cor 15:28, ὑποταγήσεται). Sits at the exact intersection of two Critical baseline risks (Lordship-of-Christ’s Advaita-subordination trap; Deity-of-Christ’s co-equality requirement) at the letter’s most theologically dense single clause. Every occurrence requires mandatory human theologian review per the baseline’s own escalation rules, and the stakes are compounded because this is the consummation of the whole resurrection argument, not an isolated aside.

4. Body of Christ / unity-in-diversity metaphor (1 Cor 12:12-27). Directly activates the Puruṣasūkta (Ṛg Veda 10.90.11-12), arguably the single most culturally load-bearing hierarchy-grounding myth available to a Sanskrit-literate reader, and Paul’s argument runs in the opposite direction. Ranked below #1-3 because the risk is reader-inference (a plausible wrong association) rather than a live ritual-practice or a direct Christological subordination claim, but ranked above all remaining items because of the myth’s canonical centrality.

5. Love (ἀγάπη, 1 Cor 13). The most aesthetically attractive misreading in the letter: a devotionally-trained reader may find प्रेम’s pull toward Gauḍīya prema-bhakti/rasa theology not just plausible but appealing, since 13:4-7’s list could be creatively reharmonized with rasa categories rather than rejected outright — a subtler risk than an obviously wrong term, because the reader may feel they have understood correctly while missing the willed/active (not aesthetic-emotional) center of Paul’s definition.

6. Wisdom/knowledge subordinated to love (σοφία, γνῶσις; 1 Cor 1-2, 8, 13). The structural inversion of jñāna-mārga’s ranking (knowledge as sufficient for liberation, here explicitly insufficient without love) is doctrinally significant but less likely to be practically enacted than #1, and less climactically positioned than #2-3.

7. Natural/spiritual person (ψυχικός/πνευματικός, 1 Cor 2:14-15, 3:1). Same root risk as item #2’s ch.15 occurrence but earlier in the letter and in a less climactic (ethical/epistemological rather than eschatological) context; still Critical because it is the same आत्मिकः lexeme carrying the Holy Spirit’s personhood risk throughout.

8. Baptism (1 Cor 1:13-17; 10:2; 12:13; 15:29). Mitigated effectively by transliteration (§3.2), lowering its residual risk considerably compared to items above; remaining risk is mainly at 15:29’s obscure “baptism for the dead,” which requires exegetical rather than lexical caution.

9. Conscience (συνείδησις, 1 Cor 8, 10). High risk in principle (a genuine functional shift from cognitive to moral faculty) but lower practical stakes than items 1-7 since it functions as supporting vocabulary within the idol-meat discussion rather than as an independent doctrinal center.

10. Headship (κεφαλή, 1 Cor 11:3). Ranked lowest among the High-risk items because its collision (varṇa-style worth-ranking) is an available misreading rather than an activated one absent the adjacent ch.12 body metaphor — risk rises somewhat by proximity to #4 but the term itself carries less independent theological weight.

---

5. Summary Recommendations for Phase 2

1. Chapter 15 requires a cumulative note bundle, not per-verse footnotes alone, given the four-way convergence documented in §1.1 and ranked #2 above. Recommend a standing translator’s preface note for any file segmenting 1 Corinthians 15.
2. Idol-meat passages (chs. 8, 10) require the heaviest single-term mediation burden in the curriculum; recommend a standing contextual note keyed to the term itself (देवप्रतिमाभ्यः निवेदितं मांसम्) rather than relying on segment-by-segment translator discretion.
3. No new forbidden-substitution terms are introduced beyond the Romans baseline’s list, but this curriculum adds four new mandatory forbidden substitutions to be enforced at the same absolute priority: ब्रह्मचर्यम् (singleness), श्राद्धम् (remembrance), दीक्षा (baptism), अक्षरम् (perishable/imperishable) — these must be added to the Phase 2 validation checklist’s forbidden-terms list alongside मोक्ष/मुक्ति/निर्वाण/पुनर्जन्म/अवतार/बare ईश्वर-ब्रह्मन्-भगवान्-देव/शक्ति.
4. Table B’s 8 Critical and 15 High-risk new terms (per 08_core_glossary.md) should inherit the same escalation routing already fixed for Romans Critical/High terms — mandatory human theologian review, no exceptions — with the resurrection cluster (§1.1) and the Son’s subjection (15:28) flagged for review as a joint unit given their argumentative interdependence.
5. This letter’s gap topology confirms the Romans baseline’s core finding: Sanskrit’s translation risk in Christian material is overwhelmingly one of crowded, already-theorized neighborhoods rather than missing vocabulary. Of the ambiguities ranked in §4, only baptism (#8) was substantially resolved by transliteration; every other top-ranked risk required fencing/redefinition of an existing, citable classical term, confirming that Phase 2 translator training time is best spent on contrastive-note fluency, not on vocabulary invention.

---

This analysis must be read alongside 07_semantic_analysis.md (full term-by-term argumentation) and 08_core_glossary.md (the consolidated glossary itself). It supplies the structural/topological view — where the risks cluster and why — that the term-level glossary format cannot itself display.