Linguistic Gap Analysis
Linguistic Gap Analysis: 1 Samuel → Spanish
Purpose
This analysis identifies where the destination language (Spanish) has adequate, inadequate, or actively risky vocabulary for the doctrines of the 1 Samuel curriculum, and recommends concrete strategies — reuse, new coinage, transliteration, paraphrase, or semantic fencing — for each gap. It builds directly on the terms already surfaced in the core glossary (08) and the draft OT term registry entries, organizing them by doctrine and by the specific linguistic phenomenon (missing vocabulary vs. crowded/collision-prone vocabulary vs. transliteration decisions) so that Phase 1 Step 9–12 deliverables (doctrine risk registry updates, AI requirements) can be built on a clear foundation.
Scope discipline: per the full-book coverage mandate, this analysis addresses vocabulary tensions arising across all 31 chapters of 1 Samuel, not only the core passage (16:1-13). Chapters that raise no new vocabulary issue beyond what is already catalogued are explicitly marked “reviewed, no new gap” in Section 6, rather than silently omitted.
1. Method
For each of the seven curriculum doctrines, this document asks:
- What Spanish vocabulary is already available (from the Romans baseline, or standard Spanish Bible tradition)?
- Where does that vocabulary run short — either because no adequate term exists (missing vocabulary), or because the available term is already claimed by a different, potentially conflicting meaning in Spanish-speaking religious culture (crowded semantic neighborhood)?
- Should the gap be closed by transliteration, paraphrase, a compound phrase, or a “fenced” (narrowly restricted) use of an existing term?
- How severe is the resulting ambiguity risk, ranked against the whole curriculum?
2. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix
| Doctrine | Available Spanish Terms | Weaknesses in Existing Vocabulary | Recommended Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. The Transition from Judges to Monarchy | rey, reinar, juez, reino de Dios (baseline) | Spanish has no single word distinguishing the biblical shophet (civil + military + covenant-enforcement office) from a modern courtroom “juez.” Also, “rey” alone does not carry 1 Samuel 8’s specific covenant-theological charge — that human kingship is being demanded in place of God’s own kingship. | Retain “juez” but pair every first occurrence with a one-line functional gloss (“líder civil, militar y espiritual, no solo un magistrado”). Retain “rey”/“reinar” as standard, but require every occurrence in chs. 8, 12 to be taught alongside the baseline’s “reino de Dios,” making explicit that Israel is not gaining a king so much as substituting one. |
| 2. God’s Sovereign Choice of David | elección, escoger/elegir (new verb-form), corazón, el menor | The Romans baseline’s “elección” is a noun with no OT narrative anchor; 1 Samuel 16 supplies the missing verb (“escoger/elegir”) and the missing concrete criterion (“corazón,” not appearance). The risk is not a missing word but an under-specified one: “corazón” in everyday Spanish skews toward romantic/emotional sentiment, which could flatten the doctrine into “God chose David because he had a good, warm personality” rather than covenantal faithfulness and moral disposition. | Use “escoger/elegir” consistently for bachar, cross-linked explicitly to the baseline “elección” in teaching notes. Gloss “corazón” on first occurrence in 16:7 as “la voluntad y el carácter, no solo los sentimientos,” to prevent sentimental drift. |
| 3. Obedience versus Sacrifice (1 Sam 15:22) | obedecer/obediencia, sacrificio/sacrificar, obediencia de la fe (baseline) | Spanish “obedecer” alone can default to a purely external, compliance-based register (“obedecer las reglas”), which is precisely the opposite of what 15:22 argues — that ritual compliance (sacrifice) without a submitted will is worthless. There is no single Spanish word that carries shama’s built-in “hear-and-do” fusion. | Do not attempt a single-word fix. Require every occurrence of 15:22 to be taught with an explicit two-part gloss: (a) shama = to hear in a way that necessarily includes doing; (b) sacrifice is not rejected as illegitimate, only as an insufficient substitute for a submitted will. Cross-reference the Romans-baseline “obediencia de la fe” to show continuity of principle across Testaments without asserting lexical identity. |
| 4. The Danger of Rejecting God as King | desechar (new), rechazar, reinar | ”Rechazar” is the more common everyday Spanish word for “reject,” but the curriculum’s own lexical chain (8:7 → 15:23,26 → 16:1,7) requires one consistent, weighty term across three separated narrative moments, and “rechazar” is used loosely in Spanish for trivial refusals (rechazar una invitación). This is a missing-register gap, not a missing-word gap. | Standardize on “desechar” (RV1960 precedent, carries more covenantal-finality weight in religious register than “rechazar”) for every instance of ma’as in this chain, with a note that this is a deliberate, non-negotiable terminological consistency decision distinct from ordinary Spanish usage. |
| 5. Faith versus Fear (David and Goliath) | fe (baseline, NT-anchored), confianza en el SEÑOR (new, contextual), de Jehová/del SEÑOR es la batalla (new) | The Romans baseline’s “fe” is calibrated to Pauline pistis, a developed NT technical term. 1 Samuel 17 has no equivalent single OT terminus technicus (batach, “trust,” is the nearest concept but is not a fixed doctrinal noun the way pistis is). Using “fe” indiscriminately risks overclaiming lexical/theological identity between David’s battlefield trust and Pauline saving faith. | Reserve “fe” strictly for moments that clearly typologically anticipate the NT sense; use “confianza en el SEÑOR” as the primary rendering for David’s trust language in ch. 17, explicitly flagged as conceptually continuous with, but not lexically identical to, the baseline “fe.” |
| 6. The Anointed King as a Type of the Messiah | ungir, el ungido de Jehová/del SEÑOR, Mesías (baseline) | No missing vocabulary — Spanish’s “ungir”/“ungido” family maps cleanly onto mashach/meshiach and directly onto the baseline’s “Mesías.” The risk is entirely catechetical: learners may see “el ungido de Jehová” applied to Saul (an already-rejected king, chs. 24, 26) and either (a) miss the typological point that the office outlasts the failed office-holder, or (b) wrongly conclude Saul himself typifies Christ rather than David. | No new coinage needed. Require a mandatory teaching note every time “el ungido de Jehová” is applied to Saul post-rejection, clarifying that David’s respect for the office — not Saul’s personal fitness — is the typological principle pointing toward the ultimate, unrejectable Anointed King. |
| 7. Samuel’s Role as Prophet and Judge | profeta, juez, vidente (restricted), palabra de Jehová/del SEÑOR | The central gap here is not missing vocabulary but a direct collision with a standing Romans-baseline prohibition: the baseline explicitly rejects “vidente” as a rendering for “prophet” because of strong new-age/fortune-telling associations in Hispanic culture, yet 1 Samuel 9:9 requires exactly this word for its own etymological gloss (“antiguamente… se llamaba vidente”). | Fence “vidente” to a single, clearly bounded use: only within the 9:9 gloss itself, always accompanied by an explanatory note that the text is commenting on obsolete terminology, not endorsing fortune-telling. Every other reference to Samuel’s office — including all narrative material outside 9:9 — must use “profeta,” with zero exceptions, to prevent the fenced use from leaking into general usage. |
3. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods
3.1 Missing Vocabulary (no adequate existing Spanish/baseline term)
These require new coinage, compound phrases, or careful first-time definition, because nothing in the Romans baseline anticipated an Old Testament narrative register:
| Concept | Hebrew | Gap Type | Proposed Closure |
|---|---|---|---|
| YHWH (Tetragrammaton) as running narrative address | יהוה | No baseline OT-naming precedent at all (Romans is NT, uses kyrios/Señor) | SEÑOR (small capitals) as primary; see Section 4 policy discussion below — this is the single largest gap in the whole curriculum. |
| chesed (covenant loyal-love) | חֶסֶד | No Spanish word carries loyalty + mercy + covenant-obligation simultaneously | ”lealtad de pacto” as primary compound; “misericordia/bondad” as contextual synonym, always with a note distinguishing it from “gracia” |
| herem (holy-war total destruction) | חָרַם | No neutral Spanish word for this specific, historically bounded covenantal category | ”destruir por completo / exterminar” plus mandatory pastoral-historical framing note every occurrence |
| ma’as as a technical covenantal-rejection term (distinguished from casual “no me gusta”) | מָאַס | Standard Spanish “rechazar” is register-mismatched (too casual) | “desechar” fixed throughout the 8:7→15:23,26→16:1,7 chain |
| bachar verb form (God’s choosing, verb) | בָּחַר | Baseline only has the noun “elección”; no verb-form precedent | ”escoger/elegir,” cross-linked explicitly to “elección” |
| Task-specific Spirit-empowerment (“came upon,” “rushed upon”) vs. NT permanent indwelling | רוּח יהוה | Baseline “Espíritu Santo” assumes NT indwelling theology; OT grammar of episodic empowerment has no baseline precedent | Retain “el Espíritu de Jehová/del SEÑOR” as the noun phrase, but require a dedicated teaching note contrasting OT task-empowerment grammar with NT permanent-indwelling grammar |
| Battle-confession idiom (“the battle is the LORD’s”) | לַיהוה הַמִּלְחָמָה | No equivalent fixed idiom exists in general Spanish religious speech | Render literally as a fixed liturgical-style confession: “de Jehová/del SEÑOR es la batalla,” never paraphrased into generic motivational language |
3.2 Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods (existing term already claimed by a rival meaning, requiring fencing)
These are not missing-word problems; they are collision problems, where a perfectly good Spanish word is already strongly associated in destination culture with a meaning the curriculum must exclude:
| Spanish Term | Competing/Dominant Association in Destination Culture | Curriculum’s Required Sense | Fencing Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jehová | Near-exclusive contemporary association with Jehová’s Witnesses (“Testigos de Jehová”), a non-Trinitarian movement in direct conflict with the Romans baseline’s Critical-risk doctrines of Christ’s deity and Sonship | The covenant, Trinitarian God’s personal name, YHWH | Adopt SEÑOR (small capitals) as default; restrict “Jehová” to direct RV1960 quotation or explicit etymological teaching on Exodus 3:14. See ranked risk #1 below. |
| vidente | New-age fortune-telling, tarot-reading, horoscope culture (already rejected by the Romans baseline for “prophet” generally) | The archaic OT title ro’eh, glossed by the text itself in 9:9 | Restrict absolutely to the 9:9 gloss with mandatory explanatory note; “profeta” everywhere else |
| santos / santificar(se) | Canonized, venerated intercessory figures (already Critical in Romans baseline) | Every believer’s set-apart status (Romans) / ritual self-preparation before God (16:5, 21:4-6) | Reuse the Romans-baseline fencing note verbatim; extend it explicitly to the OT ritual-consecration verb form so learners do not read “santificaos” (16:5) as progress toward canonization |
| vocación | Catholic-culture-specific call to priesthood/religious life (already High-risk-fenced in Romans baseline) | Not directly used in 1 Samuel’s core glossary but relevant background for Samuel’s own lifelong dedication (Hannah’s vow, ch.1) | Do not introduce “vocación” for Samuel’s calling; use “llamado,” consistent with the Romans-baseline fencing rule, even though this term arises less frequently in 1 Samuel than in Romans |
| profetizar | Ecstatic trance/spirit-possession phenomena associated with Espiritismo, Santería, and some Afro-Caribbean folk-religious practice, sharpened here because the text itself narrates group ecstatic behavior (10:10-11; 19:20-24) | Task-specific, temporary divine empowerment for a sign or purpose | Explicit teaching note distinguishing biblical prophesying (God-initiated, purpose-bound, temporary in Saul’s case) from trance-possession phenomena (practitioner-initiated, ongoing, mediating spirit identity) |
| espíritu malo / espíritu perturbador | Folk-religious categories of “malos espíritus,” wandering or possessing entities in Espiritismo/Santería | An affliction operating strictly under God’s sovereign permission after the Spirit of the LORD departs from Saul (16:14) | Every occurrence must affirm God’s sovereignty over the affliction; must not be taught as an autonomous occult force nor validated as something requiring folk-ritual remedy |
| nigromante / médium | A live, practiced folk-religious role (Espiritismo, Santería, curanderismo) rather than a purely historical curiosity | Unambiguous, forbidden practice under the Mosaic Law (ch. 28) | Never a neutral or admiring register; mandatory theologian review and paired pastoral-guidance material per occurrence |
| corazón | Everyday romantic/emotional register (“de todo corazón,” “lo siento en el corazón”) | The seat of will, moral character, and covenant disposition (16:7; 13:14) | Gloss on first occurrence as will/character, not sentiment, to prevent the doctrine of election from being read as “God liked David’s personality” |
| gracia vs. chesed | Baseline “gracia” (unmerited favor, no presumed prior relationship) already Critical | chesed presumes a prior covenant bond (David-Jonathan, 20:8) | Never render chesed simply as “gracia”; use “lealtad de pacto,” with an explicit note preventing collapse of the two concepts |
| rey / reinar | Purely civic/political register in everyday Spanish | God’s own kingship being displaced by Israel’s demand (ch. 8) | Every occurrence in chs. 8, 12 must be taught in subordination to, and contrast with, the baseline’s “reino de Dios” |
| promesa (implicitly, in relation to “voto”) | Folk-Catholic practice of “hacerle una promesa” to a saint or the Virgin in exchange for a favor | Hannah’s binding covenantal vow to God (1:11) | Use “voto,” not “promesa,” to avoid the transactional folk-piety connotation; teach as covenant faithfulness, not a bargaining gesture |
4. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions
| Term | Decision | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| YHWH | Neither full transliteration nor full paraphrase — substitution convention: “SEÑOR” (small caps) as primary; “Jehová” reserved for direct RV1960 quotation/etymological teaching | This is the single highest-stakes decision in the whole Language Package extension. Full transliteration (“Yahveh”) would depart too far from all existing Spanish Bible tradition and confuse learners moving between this curriculum and RV1960-based preaching/worship. Full retention of “Jehová” as default risks a live doctrinal collision with a specific non-Trinitarian religious movement. The small-caps SEÑOR convention (NVI, RVC precedent) threads this needle and must be ratified as an explicit, documented policy, not a silent default. |
| efod | Transliterate, with a brief functional gloss on first occurrence | No natural Spanish equivalent exists for this specific priestly garment/lot-casting object; transliteration with a gloss is standard translation practice and carries no doctrinal risk. |
| Abba (cross-curriculum reference only; not native to 1 Samuel) | N/A — retained from Romans baseline, no 1 Samuel-specific decision needed | Included here only to confirm no conflicting decision is introduced. |
| Mesías / el ungido de Jehová | Paraphrase into an existing compound phrase, not transliteration | ”Ungido” is a live, transparent Spanish word (from “ungir”); no transliteration is needed, and the existing baseline “Mesías” already anchors the lexical family. |
| herem | Paraphrase only (“destruir por completo / exterminar”); do NOT transliterate “herem” itself | Transliterating a technical Hebrew term for holy-war destruction into general teaching material risks giving it an almost technical-sounding legitimacy detached from its bounded historical context; a plain-language paraphrase, heavily glossed, is pastorally safer. |
| ov / nigromante | Paraphrase using standard Spanish religious-register vocabulary (“nigromante,” “médium”), not transliteration of “ov” | These are established Spanish words already carrying the correct negative moral register; transliteration would add nothing and would obscure the concept behind an unfamiliar term. |
| shama (obedience) | Paraphrase via existing words plus mandatory teaching gloss, no transliteration | Spanish has serviceable native vocabulary (“obedecer”); the gap is conceptual (the hear-and-do fusion), not lexical-availability, so transliteration would not help. |
| chesed | Paraphrase via compound phrase (“lealtad de pacto”), not transliteration | Same logic as above; a Hebrew transliteration would be opaque to the target audience and unnecessary given a workable Spanish compound. |
| ro’eh (seer) | Fenced use of existing word “vidente,” not transliteration | Transliterating “ro’eh” would be historically accurate but pedagogically pointless, since the text’s own point (9:9) is about a change in Hebrew vocabulary, which is more naturally taught by noting the equivalent shift between two live Spanish words (“vidente” → “profeta”) than by introducing a third, transliterated form. |
General transliteration policy for this curriculum: default to paraphrase/existing Spanish vocabulary; transliterate only where (a) no natural Spanish equivalent exists (efod) or (b) established cross-curriculum precedent already transliterates (Abba, inherited from Romans, not newly introduced here).
5. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities
Ranked by combined doctrinal severity and likelihood of real-world mistranslation/misreading, consistent with the Critical/High/Medium/Low framework of doctrine_risk_registry.json.
- YHWH → “Jehová” default drift (Critical). By far the highest-volume risk (300+ occurrences). If Phase 2 translators default to RV1960 habit without the ratified SEÑOR policy, every single occurrence silently risks an unintended association with a non-Trinitarian movement holding doctrine in direct conflict with this curriculum’s (and the Romans baseline’s) Critical teaching on Christ’s deity. Must be resolved before any Phase 2 segment work begins.
- “vidente” leakage from its 9:9 fence into general use for “prophet” (Critical). A single careless reuse anywhere else in the curriculum would directly contradict the Romans-baseline prohibition and reintroduce new-age/fortune-telling associations onto Samuel’s entire prophetic office.
- “desechar”/“rechazar” inconsistency across the 8:7 → 15:23,26 → 16:1,7 chain (Critical). If different translators (or the same translator on different days) alternate between these two words, the curriculum’s central lexical argument — that Israel’s rejection of God is mirrored by God’s rejection of Saul — becomes invisible to the learner.
- “nigromante/médium” rendered in a neutral or folk-descriptive register (Critical). Given active Espiritismo/Santería practice in parts of the destination culture, any softening of tone in ch. 28 risks the text being read as a religious-diversity narrative rather than an unambiguous condemnation.
- “espíritu malo” collapsing into folk “malos espíritus” categories, or conversely being read as pure psychological/medical language stripped of spiritual reality (Critical). Both over-mythologizing and de-supernaturalizing are live risks in different audience segments of the same destination culture.
- 15:22’s “obedecer es mejor que los sacrificios” being read as devaluing sacrifice/ritual worship altogether (High). Especially risky given the destination culture’s strong sacramental/ritual religious heritage; must be taught as a both/and priority statement, not an either/or rejection of ritual worship as such.
- “corazón” (16:7) sentimentalized into personality/feeling rather than will and character (High). Undercuts the doctrine of sovereign election by making it sound like a preference rather than a covenantal judgment.
- “fe” over-applied to David’s battlefield trust language in ch. 17 (High). Risks flattening the careful distinction this Language Package draws between OT batach-trust and the Romans baseline’s technical pistis-anchored “fe.”
- “el ungido de Jehová” applied to the rejected Saul being misread as validating Saul’s continuing fitness to rule, rather than teaching respect for the office as a type pointing to Christ (High). A subtle but real risk given the term’s Critical/messianic weight.
- “chesed” flattened into “gracia” without the covenant-bond distinction (High). Risks eroding the Romans baseline’s own careful grace-versus-merit teaching by implying grace always presumes a prior relationship, which would blur Romans 4’s argument that grace is by definition unmerited and unearned.
6. Full-Book Chapter Coverage Checklist
Every chapter of 1 Samuel has been reviewed for vocabulary-gap implications. Chapters not raising a new gap beyond what is already catalogued above are marked accordingly, per the full-book coverage mandate.
| Ch. | Key Content | Gap Status |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hannah’s vow, birth of Samuel | New gap: “voto” vs. folk “promesa” (§3.2) |
| 2 | Hannah’s song (“Roca”), Eli’s sons’ corruption, unnamed “man of God” | New gap: divine title “Roca” (relational epithet, not nature-worship); “hombres perversos” (low risk, reviewed, no new gap beyond existing catalogue) |
| 3 | Samuel’s call, “the word of the LORD was rare” | New gap: “palabra de Jehová/del SEÑOR” tracks YHWH policy; reviewed |
| 4 | Ark captured, Ichabod, glory departs | New gap: “gloria”(kavod) nuance; reviewed |
| 5 | Ark among Philistines, Dagon falls | Reviewed — proper name “Dagón,” no new lexical gap beyond the rival-deity teaching note already flagged for “Dios” |
| 6 | Ark returned, guilt offering | Reviewed — “ofrenda por el pecado/expiación,” Low risk, no new gap |
| 7 | Samuel judges Israel, repentance, foreign gods removed | New gap: “dioses ajenos/extraños” fencing vs. syncretism; reviewed |
| 8 | Israel demands a king; God’s kingship rejected | Anchor chapter for gap #3 (“desechar”) and doctrine matrix row 1 and 4 |
| 9 | Saul introduced; 9:9 seer/prophet gloss | Anchor chapter for gap #2 (“vidente” fencing) |
| 10 | Saul anointed; prophesying; Spirit comes upon Saul | Anchor chapter for “ungir,” “profetizar,” and task-empowerment Spirit gap |
| 11 | Saul’s victory, confirmed king | Reviewed — no new gap beyond “rey/reinar” already catalogued |
| 12 | Samuel’s farewell address; witness; fear/serve the LORD | New gap: “temor de Jehová/del SEÑOR” fencing vs. terror; “testigo” reviewed, low risk |
| 13 | Saul’s unlawful sacrifice; kingdom will not continue | Anchor chapter for “sacrificio” tension with doctrine 3; “mandamiento/precepto” reviewed |
| 14 | Jonathan’s exploits; deliverance | Anchor chapter for OT-temporal “salvación”/“librar” distinction |
| 15 | Disobedience re Amalekites; herem; 15:22 obedience vs. sacrifice; rejection | Core doctrinal anchor chapter — gaps #3, #6, herem gap all converge here |
| 16 | David anointed; Spirit on David; evil spirit on Saul | Core passage. Anchor chapter for gaps #1 (YHWH), #5 (evil spirit), #7 (corazón), “escoger/elegir,” “el menor,” “apacentar” |
| 17 | David and Goliath; battle is the LORD’s | Anchor chapter for gap #8 (fe vs. confianza) and the battle-confession idiom |
| 18 | David-Jonathan covenant; love (ahav); Saul’s jealousy | Reviewed — “amar/amor” low risk, no new gap |
| 19 | Saul pursues David; prophesying episode | Reviewed — reinforces “profetizar” fencing already catalogued at ch.10 |
| 20 | David-Jonathan covenant renewed | Anchor chapter for gap #10 (chesed vs. gracia) |
| 21 | Holy bread given to David; ephod | Reviewed — “pan consagrado/sagrado,” Medium risk already catalogued under the “santo” family |
| 22 | David at Adullam; ephod | Reviewed — no new gap beyond ephod transliteration decision (§4) |
| 23 | David inquires of the LORD; Keilah | Reviewed — “consultar a Jehová/del SEÑOR” tracks YHWH policy, no new gap |
| 24 | David spares Saul; “the LORD’s anointed” | Anchor chapter for gap #9 (ungido applied to rejected Saul) |
| 25 | Nabal and Abigail; vengeance | Reviewed — “venganza,” Low risk, cross-referenced to Romans 12:19 |
| 26 | David spares Saul again; LORD’s anointed | Reviewed — reinforces gap #9, no new lexical issue |
| 27 | David among the Philistines | Reviewed — no new vocabulary gap identified; narrative bridge chapter, terminology already catalogued (king, Philistines as covenant-outsiders per “incircunciso,” ch.17) applies without new tension |
| 28 | Saul consults the medium of Endor | Anchor chapter for gap #4 (nigromante/médium) |
| 29 | David dismissed by the Philistines | Reviewed — no new vocabulary gap identified; narrative bridge chapter |
| 30 | David strengthens himself in the LORD | Reviewed — “se fortaleció en Jehová/del SEÑOR,” positive counterpart to ch.28, tracks YHWH policy, no new lexical gap beyond what’s catalogued |
| 31 | Saul’s death | Reviewed — “se dejó caer sobre su espada,” pastoral-sensitivity flag already catalogued in the core glossary; no new lexical gap |
Coverage confirmation: all 31 chapters of 1 Samuel have been reviewed. Chapters 6, 11, 18, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 29, 30, and 31 introduce no vocabulary tension beyond terms already catalogued elsewhere in this analysis or the core glossary (08); they are recorded here explicitly rather than omitted, per the full-book coverage mandate.
7. Recommendations for Phase 2 Preparation
- Ratify the YHWH → “SEÑOR” (small caps) policy formally before any Phase 2 segment translation begins. This is a prerequisite decision, not an in-flight one, given its volume (300+ occurrences) and doctrinal stakes.
- Load the fencing rules for “vidente,” “santos/santificar,” “vocación,” “profetizar,” and “nigromante/médium” as hard validation checks, analogous to the Romans baseline’s forbidden-substitution list, before Phase 2 begins.
- Add “corazón,” “escoger/elegir,” “desechar,” and “confianza en el SEÑOR” to the mandatory glossary-enforcement pass, since these carry doctrine-critical weight but are common enough Spanish words that an AI translator could plausibly substitute a synonym without flagging.
- Require a mandatory teaching note (not merely a footnote) wherever “el ungido de Jehová” is applied to Saul post-rejection (chs. 24, 26), to preserve the typological argument without implying Saul’s personal rehabilitation.
- Treat chapters 15 and 16 as the two highest-density risk chapters in the book for Phase 2 review routing — nearly every ranked ambiguity in Section 5 converges in these two chapters, consistent with their status as the doctrinal and narrative hinge of the whole curriculum.
This analysis extends, and must never contradict, the Romans baseline translation_memory.json and bible_term_registry.json, and is consistent with analysis/08_core_glossary.md. All new-term recommendations here are proposals pending theologian ratification before being versioned into the shared translation memory for Phase 2.