Executive Summary: Exodus — English → Spanish

Why it matters

Exodus is the Old Testament’s foundational redemption narrative — the book every later biblical salvation image (Passover, covenant, tabernacle, priesthood, the divine Name) depends on, and which Romans, the curriculum’s existing anchor, presupposes at nearly every turn (Romans 3:25’s ἱλαστήριον, Romans 6’s slavery-to-freedom logic, Romans 9’s Pharaoh, Romans 10:9’s “Señor”). Translating it into Spanish is not a low-risk narrative exercise: the destination culture’s dominant Catholic tradition, its fast-growing Evangelical movement, and its live folk-religious layer (Espiritismo, Santería, curanderismo) each intersect this book’s core vocabulary — the divine Name, sacrificial blood, sainthood-adjacent “holy nation” language, priesthood, and intercession — more densely than any single Romans chapter. Getting this Language Package right determines whether Spanish-speaking learners receive Exodus’s own theology or an unintentionally syncretized substitute.

Key findings

• 106 total glossary terms now govern Exodus translation: 23 terms inherited exactly from the Romans baseline package, plus 83 new Exodus-specific terms identified across all 40 chapters.
• 63 of those 106 terms (59%) are Critical or High risk, requiring mandatory human theologian review at every occurrence per the enforcement rules (29 Critical, 34 High, 29 Medium, 14 Low).
• 20 doctrines are tracked in the Exodus doctrine risk registry — the curriculum’s 8 designated doctrines plus 12 supporting doctrines the registry also monitors. 17 of the 20 (85%) require human theologian review; the remaining 3 require native speaker review; zero are automated-only — a notably higher-intensity risk profile than the Romans baseline, which had 4 automated-only doctrines.
• Two lexical collisions outrank every other risk in severity and likelihood: (1) “Pascua” is the identical Spanish word for both the Exodus 12 festival and modern Easter/Semana Santa; (2) the covenant name YHWH (“el SEÑOR”) must be kept typographically distinct from generic “señor” and from the Jehovah’s Witness-associated “Jehová” variant, while still being taught as continuous with Christ’s Lordship in Romans 10:9.
• The single highest narrative-driven syncretism risk in the book is Moses’ intercession after the golden calf (Exodus 32–33): a visible, historical human mediator pleading before God maps almost too easily onto the popular pattern of saint/Marian intercession the baseline package already flags as Critical.

Risks

• Doctrinal drift via lexical collapse: Spanish “redimir” flattens two distinct Hebrew redemption roots (ga’al, padah); “velo” flattens two distinct Hebrew veil terms (parochet, masveh) — both require mandatory teaching notes, not new words, to resolve.
• Framing-level (not merely lexical) risk: naming “The Exodus as Redemption” doctrine “liberación” risks unintended alignment with Latin American Liberation Theology’s socio-political reading; naming Moses a capitalized “Libertador” risks unintended alignment with Simón Bolívar’s civic legacy. Neither is a translation error a segment-level glossary check alone would catch.
• Denominational-identity collisions: “sábado” risks being read as tacit support for Seventh-day Adventist Sabbath doctrine; “Jehová” risks being read as tacit alignment with Jehovah’s Witness theology, which the curriculum’s own Romans material doctrinally opposes (Critical “lord”/“son_of_god” entries).
• Catechetical (non-lexical) risk concentrated in the tabernacle material: “tabernáculo” collides with the modern Catholic Eucharistic cabinet of the same name; “sacerdotes”/“sumo sacerdote” collide with the ordained Catholic priesthood; both require disambiguating notes rather than different words.

Opportunities

• Strong typological bridges already available in the existing Spanish Bible tradition: “propiciatorio” (mercy seat) and Romans 3:25’s “propiciación” share the identical LXX Greek term (ἱλαστήριον), closing a gap the Romans baseline had flagged but never resolved — this package now supplies that missing fixed rendering.
• The avodah wordplay (slavery/worship) and the ga’al/padah redemption distinction, while lexically unrecoverable in Spanish, become high-value teaching moments once flagged — turning an apparent translation limitation into deliberate doctrinal instruction that reinforces Romans 6 and Romans 4/13.
• Exodus 20:2’s redemption-precedes-law sequencing gives this curriculum a natural, narrative-grounded reinforcement of the grace-vs-merit discipline the Romans baseline already established for justification — Exodus makes the same point historically that Romans makes argumentatively.

Recommended actions

1. Load assets/translation_memory.json and assets/bible_term_registry.json (this package) alongside the existing Romans-baseline files before any Phase 2 Exodus segment translation begins — do not translate from the Romans TM alone.
2. Apply the mandatory dual-note system in analysis/12_ai_translation_requirements.md (translator notes + teaching notes) at every occurrence of the eight highest-priority terms: Pascua, el SEÑOR/Jehová, intercesión (Moses), Dios celoso, reino de sacerdotes/sumo sacerdote, tabernáculo, misericordia (chesed), and redimir (ga’al/padah).
3. Route all 17 theologian-required doctrines and their associated Critical/High terms through human theologian review before any Phase 2 output is marked approved; route the 3 native-speaker-review doctrines (God’s Provision in the Wilderness, Covenant Boundary and Inclusion, Spirit-Empowerment for Service) accordingly.
4. Apply the framing-level pre-publication check (Section 7 of 06_linguistic_gap_analysis.md) to any lesson introducing “The Exodus as Redemption” or “Moses as Mediator and Deliverer” by title, independent of segment-level glossary compliance.
5. Carry forward all cross-document verbatim-consistency flags (Éxodo 3:14; 5:1; 12:5,13; 24:8; 34:6-7; 40:34-35) into every future curriculum document referencing these passages, matching the discipline already established for Romans 1:16-17, 8:28, and 10:9-10.