Linguistic Gap Analysis: Joshua (English → Spanish)

Purpose and Method

This analysis executes PRD Phase 1 Step 8 for the Joshua curriculum. It does not re-derive the term-by-term glossary already fixed in 08_core_glossary.md and bible_term_registry.json; instead it analyzes the linguistic terrain those artifacts must operate in: where the destination language (Spanish) has doctrine-adequate vocabulary already, where it has none, where existing vocabulary is already “occupied” by a rival meaning (crowded semantic neighborhoods requiring fencing), and where the choice between transliteration and paraphrase carries doctrinal weight. It closes with a ranked list of this curriculum’s highest-risk ambiguities for Phase 2 routing.

This document assumes and does not repeat the baseline Romans Language Package’s established rulings (e.g., “pacto” not “alianza,” “santo” not a ritual-purity gloss, “gracia” not merit-cooperation). Where Joshua’s vocabulary intersects those baseline rulings, this analysis states the intersection explicitly rather than re-litigating the baseline decision.

---

Part 1: Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

For each of the seven curriculum doctrines: what Spanish vocabulary is available, what is structurally weak about it, and the recommended handling strategy.

1. God’s Faithfulness to the Land Promise

Available Spanish terms	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
heredad, herencia (נַחֲלָה)	“Herencia” pulls toward an abstract, individualized, often financial/legal modern sense (a will, an inheritance tax) detached from tribally surveyed, geographically specific land. “Heredad” is more archaic-sounding to contemporary ears and less familiar outside RV1960-anchored congregations.	Standardize on “heredad” for the specific land-portion sense (chs. 13-21); permit “herencia” only in abstract summary statements. Require an explicit teaching gloss the first time each chapter uses it: “porción de tierra que Dios prometió y ahora entrega.”
pacto (בְּרִית)	Adequate (TM reuse), but Joshua contains at least three distinct covenantal instances (Sinai/Mosaic covenant renewed at Shechon, the Gibeon treaty, the Transjordan-altar near-conflict) that a single unglossed “pacto” can blur together.	Require chapter-specific qualifiers in teaching text (“el pacto de Silo,” “el pacto con los gabaonitas”) even though the base term stays fixed.
cumplir (fulfill), promesa (promise)	No lexical weakness; risk is purely catechetical — Spanish-speaking learners with thin OT literacy may not recognize Genesis 15/17 as the promise being fulfilled.	Pair every occurrence of “promesa” with an explicit cross-reference note to the patriarchal promise texts; do not assume background knowledge.
Gap: no single Spanish term captures “land-promise-as-a-single-theological-package” the way English curricula sometimes compress it.	—	Do not manufacture a new coined term; teach the doctrine periphrastically (“la promesa de la tierra”) rather than inventing a technical compound that has no precedent in Spanish Bible tradition.

2. Holy War and Divine Judgment

Available Spanish terms	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
anatema (חֵרֶם / cherem)	Borrowed via LXX/Pauline usage (cf. Romans 9:3, 1 Corinthians 16:22 traditions), so it is lexically available in the Spanish Bible-translation tradition — but its dominant register in contemporary Spanish is “excommunication/curse pronounced by an authority” (canon-law flavored), not “irrevocably devoted to God for destruction under a specific ancient-Near-Eastern conquest command.”	Retain “anatema” as the noun gloss but rely primarily on the periphrastic verbal rendering “destruir por completo / exterminar por mandato de Jehová” in narrative text, always paired with a teaching note distinguishing this from a generalized theology of religious cursing or from a warrant for unrestricted violence. See Ranked Ambiguity #1 below.
destruir, exterminar (general destruction verbs)	Adequate but doctrinally flat on their own — indistinguishable from ordinary battle narration.	Never let a general destruction verb stand alone in a cherem context; always co-occur with the theologically marked noun/idiom above.
juicio (judgment)	No lexical weakness; risk is that “juicio de Dios” in popular piety can drift toward a vague, timeless notion of divine wrath disconnected from Canaan’s specific covenant-historical sins (cf. Genesis 15:16; Leviticus 18:24-25).	Anchor every occurrence of “juicio” in this doctrine to the specific historical rationale given in the text; resist generalized “God punishes sinners” framing without the covenant-historical particularity.
guerra (war)	Adequate as a bare descriptor but must never be allowed to normalize the conquest as an ordinary war narrative parallel to secular military history.	Consistently qualify as “guerra de conquista bajo mandato divino” in teaching apparatus, distinguishing it from a repeatable model for warfare.

3. Courage through God’s Presence

Available Spanish terms	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
esforzarse y ser valiente (חֲזַק וֶאֱמָץ)	Lexically fine (RV1960 precedent), but the phrase alone, lifted out of context, sounds identical to secular Spanish-language motivational/self-help rhetoric (“¡esfuérzate, tú puedes!”) extremely common in contemporary Latin American and Iberian media and even some prosperity-oriented Christian broadcasting.	Never present the phrase without its grounding clause (“porque Jehová tu Dios estará contigo”) in the same sentence or immediately adjacent teaching text; treat the grounding clause as non-optional, not a detachable footnote.
Príncipe del ejército de Jehová (5:14-15)	No lexical weakness in the rendering itself; theological weakness is interpretive — the figure’s identity (theophany vs. created angelic being) is genuinely disputed even among orthodox commentators.	Do not resolve the ambiguity in the base translation; flag every occurrence for human theologian review and require any teaching commentary to present the theophany reading as a strong possibility, not a settled identification.
presencia de Dios (presence of God)	Adequate; minor risk of sounding like generic devotional-emotional language (“sentir la presencia de Dios” as a felt experience) rather than the specific covenantal guarantee of accompaniment in battle/conquest.	Tie explicitly to the “estará contigo” formula rather than to subjective religious-experience vocabulary.

4. Rahab and the Inclusion of the Nations by Faith

Available Spanish terms	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
ramera (זוֹנָה)	No lexical weakness — this is precisely the risk-inverted case in this glossary: the danger is euphemistic softening (“una mujer de mala reputación,” “una mujer de la calle”) rather than mistranslation, driven by pastoral delicacy.	Retain “ramera” unsoftened at every occurrence (per bible_term_registry.json); explicitly instruct against synonym substitution even for register/politeness reasons.
fe (faith)	TM reuse from baseline; adequate, but the doctrine here (inclusion of a Gentile/Canaanite outsider by faith-confession alone, prior to any circumcision or covenant membership) is a distinctly different configuration from Romans’ individual-salvation faith doctrine, even though the same word is used.	Teach Rahab’s “fe” explicitly as a canonical anticipation of the Romans doctrine (cf. Hebrews 11:31, James 2:25, outside this curriculum but useful cross-reference), not as an unrelated Old Testament anecdote.
misericordia y verdad (חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת)	“Misericordia” alone risks narrowing to an act of pity (a one-time favor granted to a supplicant) rather than the fuller covenant-loyalty sense of chesed; also risks conflation with baseline “gracia.”	Always render as the fixed pair “misericordia y verdad,” never “misericordia” alone; explicit note distinguishing chesed-loyalty from soteriological “gracia.”
Gap: no clean Spanish equivalent for the social category the English “harlot” plus the ethnic/religious “outsider” status jointly signal — Spanish has no single term compressing “socially disqualified AND religiously/ethnically outside the covenant people.”	—	Do not attempt a compressed term; teach the double disqualification (moral/social status + Gentile/Canaanite identity) as two explicit, separately named facts building toward one doctrinal point.

5. Covenant Renewal at Shechem

Available Spanish terms	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
escoger (choose)	Adequate lexically; doctrinal risk is that it sits in the same conceptual family as baseline’s “elección” (God’s sovereign choosing of the believer) but runs in the opposite direction of agency here (Israel is called to choose God).	Present both together explicitly as complementary, not contradictory, per bible_term_registry.json’s note; never let a learner infer that Joshua 24:15 contradicts a Reformed/monergist reading of Romans 9.
servir (serve)	TM-adjacent to baseline’s general obedience vocabulary; risk is domestication into generic “ir a la iglesia / practicar la religión” activity rather than an exclusive-sovereign vassal-treaty allegiance.	Always teach in its vassal-treaty background: one serves one sovereign only; serving Jehová and serving other gods are mutually exclusive, not a matter of degree or primary/secondary devotion.
dioses (foreign gods) / Dios (true God)	Purely a Spanish orthographic risk: Hebrew does not distinguish “elohim-singular-true-God” from “elohim-plural-false-gods” the way Spanish capitalization does. A dropped capital letter in either direction (typo, OCR, careless copy-edit) silently erases the very antithesis 24:14-15 exists to force.	Enforce capitalization as a hard validation rule in every Phase 2 QA pass specific to this curriculum (see Part 4, Ambiguity #4); flag any segment where “dios” (lowercase) appears with a singular-true-God referent or “Dios” (capitalized) appears with a plural/foreign referent.
integridad, verdad (תָּמִים, אֱמֶת)	Both risk flattening into generic secular-ethics vocabulary (business “integridad,” philosophical “verdad”) divorced from covenant loyalty.	Always pair with an explicit gloss tying both terms back to the historical recital in 24:2-13 — integrity and faithfulness to the specific God who has just been shown faithful, not free-floating virtues.

6. Obedience and the Conquest

Available Spanish terms	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
como Jehová lo había mandado a Moisés (fixed formula)	No lexical weakness; the risk is purely one of translator/editor discipline — a recurring formula is highly vulnerable to well-intentioned “stylistic variation” across many chapters and multiple Phase 2 workers.	Hard-lock this exact rendering across every occurrence (11:12,15,20,23 and parallels) as a Theological Consistency Rule identical in kind to the baseline’s Romans 8:28 rule; treat any variant rendering as a validation failure, not a stylistic choice.
ley (law)	TM reuse; adequate.	No special handling beyond baseline.
prosperar (succeed)	Real collision risk with prosperity-gospel readings widespread in parts of Latin America and the Caribbean, where “prosperar” defaults to financial/material blessing as an end in itself.	Never present 1:8’s prosperity promise without its explicit obedience-conditioning clause; do not extract “prosperarás” as a stand-alone memory verse without the surrounding meditation-on-the-Law framing.
circuncisión (circumcision)	Lexically standard; risk is that Spanish-speaking learners will import later Pauline circumcision-controversy content (Galatians, outside this curriculum) rather than reading 5:2-9 in its own covenant-renewal-before-conquest setting.	Teach 5:2-9 self-containedly; if a cross-reference to Paul is made, mark it explicitly as a different argument in a different redemptive-historical moment.

7. Rest in the Promised Land as a Type of Salvation Rest

Available Spanish terms	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
reposo (שָׁקְטָה / נָח, κατάπαυσις)	No lexical weakness in the word itself; the entire risk is consistency — Spanish has several near-synonyms (“descanso,” “tranquilidad,” “paz,” “sosiego”) that a translator might reach for as natural stylistic variation, each of which would sever the deliberate Hebrew→LXX→Hebrews 3-4 lexical chain this term is chosen to preserve.	Hard-lock “reposo” at every occurrence (11:23; 21:44; 22:4) with zero permitted synonym substitution — the single most consistency-sensitive term in this curriculum, exceeding even the Romans 8:28 precedent in stakes because the doctrinal payoff depends on a specific word being recognizable to a reader who later encounters Hebrews 3-4 in a future curriculum.
Gap: Spanish has no single word that simultaneously carries “cessation from military conflict” AND “settled covenantal dwelling” AND “typological anticipation of eschatological rest” the way the Hebrew/Greek semantic field does. “Reposo” is the best available anchor but does not spontaneously suggest all three senses to a first-time reader.	—	Compensate entirely through teaching apparatus, not through lexical choice: explicit notes at each of the three occurrences building the reader progressively toward the Hebrews 3-4 typology, without altering the base term.

---

Part 2: Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods

2.1 Missing Vocabulary (no adequate existing Spanish term)

Concept	Nature of the gap	Resolution
חֵרֶם / cherem as a unified single-word technical category	Spanish has no word combining “irrevocably devoted to God” + “for destruction” + “under a unique, non-repeatable conquest-era divine command” in one lexeme. “Anatema” alone under-signals the destruction sense to a modern reader (who hears “excommunicated” or “cursed”); “destruir por completo” alone under-signals the consecration/devotion sense.	Use both terms in tandem (see doctrine matrix above and Ranked Ambiguity #1) rather than forcing a single-word solution; this is a case for periphrasis over lexical compression.
A term for “the land-promise-as-single-theological-package”	No Spanish compound exists parallel to English curriculum shorthand like “the land promise.”	Use the periphrastic “la promesa de la tierra” consistently as a fixed teaching-register phrase (not a Bible-text rendering, since no single verse uses this exact English phrase either) rather than coining a new technical term.
A term compressing Rahab’s dual disqualification (social status + ethnic/religious outsider status)	See doctrine matrix §4.	Teach as two explicit facts, not one compressed term.
A dedicated Spanish word for the Hebrew “goral” lot-casting procedure as distinct from vernacular chance	Spanish “suerte” is overloaded (see 2.2 below); there is no unmarked alternative noun in the Bible-translation tradition.	Restrict to the fixed idiom “echar suertes” only, never as a free-standing noun; see Ranked Ambiguity #3.

2.2 Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods Requiring Fencing

These are cases where Spanish does have a usable word, but that word is already carrying a different, competing load — either from the baseline Romans package, from mainstream Hispanic Catholic popular piety, or from secular vernacular usage — such that the Joshua-specific sense must be actively fenced off.

Spanish term	Competing occupant of the semantic space	Fencing required
tierra santa (5:15)	“Tierra Santa” (capitalized) is the fixed, near-universal contemporary Spanish designation for the modern geographic/pilgrimage region of Israel-Palestine — loaded with tourism, geopolitics, and cross-tradition religious-heritage associations entirely foreign to Joshua 5:15’s meaning.	Render lowercase “tierra santa” without exception; every occurrence requires an explicit note preventing the reader from hearing a reference to the modern “Holy Land.” This is a fencing risk essentially unique to this curriculum among the corpus analyzed so far.
suerte (13-19, lot-casting)	Baseline Romans package already explicitly rejects “suerte” as a rendering for “providence” and “election” because of its fatalistic, chance-based vernacular force (“tuve suerte,” “por pura suerte”). Joshua’s own lot-casting narrative reactivates the identical word in a different but adjacent register.	Restrict absolutely to the idiom “echar suertes”; never use as a free-standing noun; every occurrence must carry the same providence-vs-fatalism teaching note the baseline already requires elsewhere, extended explicitly to this book.
arca del pacto (3-4, 6, 8)	“Arca de la alianza” is the far more culturally dominant phrase in Spanish-speaking Catholic contexts, reinforced by decades of popular film and media (e.g., well-known adventure-film titles use “de la alianza”). This is a stronger crowding pressure than the baseline’s general “pacto vs. alianza” ruling faces elsewhere, because here a specific, extremely recognizable competing phrase exists.	Enforce “arca del pacto” without exception; flag any draft segment producing “arca de la alianza” as an immediate validation failure, not merely a stylistic deviation.
dioses / Dios (24:14-16,20,23)	Not a competing external occupant but an internal typographic collision — Spanish capitalization convention is the entire load-bearing distinction between the true God and the false gods, a distinction Hebrew orthography itself does not mark.	See doctrine matrix §5 above; treat as a hard-validation capitalization rule, not a stylistic nicety.
vengador de la sangre (ch. 20)	The root go’el is elsewhere rendered “Redentor” (redeemer) — a term carrying strong, positive, soteriologically loaded connotations in Spanish Christian usage (baseline associates redemption vocabulary tightly with Christ’s atoning work).	Never render go’el as “redentor” in this avenger-of-blood context; flag every future go’el occurrence (this curriculum and beyond, e.g., Ruth) for contextual sense-disambiguation rather than defaulting to the more familiar positive title.
ciudad de refugio (ch. 20)	Spanish-speaking Catholic tradition has its own historically related but distinct concept of ecclesiastical sanctuary/asylum (fugitives taking refuge in a church building, a concept with real historical and canon-law weight in Iberian and Latin American church history).	Keep the Old Testament judicial-refuge background primary in exegesis; any typological application toward Christ as refuge must be explicitly marked as application, not presented as though the term itself already means that.
santo / tierra santa / santificarse (throughout)	These reactivate the baseline’s already-documented “santos” crowding risk (canonized-saints veneration) even though Joshua’s occurrences (holy ground, self-consecration, God’s holy character) are mostly adjectival/verbal rather than the baseline’s specific “santos” noun-for-believers case.	No new fencing rule needed beyond extending the baseline’s existing caution: confirm in teaching apparatus that “santo” here means set-apart/pure, not canonized-and-venerated, exactly as the baseline already requires for Romans 1:7’s “santos.”
escoger (24:15)	Crowds against baseline’s “elección” (God’s sovereign choice of the believer).	See doctrine matrix §5; teach complementarity, not contradiction.
pacto (throughout)	Crowds against the baseline’s already-settled “pacto vs. alianza” ruling, now applied to three distinct covenant instances within one book rather than a single Pauline argument.	See doctrine matrix §1; require chapter-specific qualifiers alongside the fixed base term.

---

Part 3: Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions

Joshua introduces a distinct category of decision largely absent from the Romans baseline: proper names and place names carrying theological freight, where the choice between transliteration (preserving the sound) and paraphrase/translation (conveying the sense) is doctrinally consequential.

Term	Decision	Rationale
יְהוָה (YHWH)	Transliterate-adjacent: “Jehová” (established RV1960/RVA2015 form), never “Señor,” never “Yahvé.”	The covenant name’s particularity must remain visually and lexically distinct from the NT’s “Señor” (κύριος applied to Christ). This is the single most consequential transliteration decision in the curriculum; see Ranked Ambiguity #2.
יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (Yehoshua)	Translate to the established distinct Spanish Bible form “Josué” — explicitly NOT “Jesús,” despite the shared Hebrew root and shared LXX Greek form (Iēsous).	Spanish Bible tradition has always kept these as two separate names; collapsing them, even for an edifying typological point, would be a serious and confusing category error for a first-time reader. Typological connection (Joshua as partial type of a greater salvation) may be taught explicitly as application, never as if the names are interchangeable.
חֵרֶם (cherem)	Loan/transliterate the noun as “anatema” (already present in the Spanish Bible-translation tradition via LXX/Pauline usage) but rely on paraphrase (“destruir por completo”) for the verbal/narrative sense.	A pure transliteration alone (“herem”) would be unrecognizable and require inventing new vocabulary with no textual precedent; a pure paraphrase alone would lose the technical, consecratory weight. Hybrid handling is required — see doctrine matrix §2.
Various place names (Siquem/Shechem, Gilgal, Guilgal, Hai/Ai, Guézer, Debir, etc.)	Use established Spanish Bible-translation forms for each place name; do not paraphrase or modernize any of them.	Consistency with the wider Spanish Bible tradition (RV1960/RVA2015 toponymy) is required so that cross-references to other curricula and to learners’ personal Bibles resolve without confusion. Full toponym list to be finalized against the RV1960 place-name index during Phase 2 onboarding; flagged here as a completeness item rather than resolved individually in this document.
אַבָּא (Abba) — cross-reference only	Not present in Joshua; noted here only to confirm the baseline’s transliteration-retention precedent (Romans 8:15) is not disturbed or contradicted by any Joshua-specific decision.	No action required; included for completeness of the transliteration-policy record.
Príncipe del ejército de Jehová (5:14)	Paraphrase/translate the full title rather than transliterating the Hebrew construct phrase.	The title is descriptive, not a proper name; RV1960 precedent already exists for the translated form, and no transliteration tradition exists for this phrase in Spanish.

General rule established for this curriculum: transliterate/retain established Bible-tradition proper names and the divine covenant name; paraphrase technical theological categories (cherem) that lack a single-word Spanish equivalent, using the tandem-term strategy documented in Part 2.1 rather than coining new vocabulary.

---

Part 4: Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities

Ranked by combined severity (doctrinal stakes) and likelihood (how easily a competent but uninstructed translator or reviewer could get it wrong without this analysis).

1. cherem / “anatema” vs. “destruir por completo.” Highest doctrinal stakes in the book. Risk of either softening into ordinary war vocabulary (losing the judicial/consecratory force) or being read as unqualified license for violence detached from its unique, non-repeatable covenant-historical placement. Requires human theologian review on every occurrence, tandem-term rendering, and a mandatory teaching note tying it to Genesis 15:16 / Leviticus 18:24-25 at every use.

2. Jehová vs. Señor collision. If any Phase 2 segment inadvertently renders יְהוָה as “Señor” (e.g., through a worker defaulting to the more familiar baseline habit from the Romans corpus, or through careless harmonization with a quoted NT cross-reference), the entire OT/NT distinction this Language Package is built to preserve collapses in that segment. Requires an automated validation rule scanning every YHWH occurrence for the exact string “Jehová” and flagging any “Señor” substitution as a hard failure, not merely a stylistic flag.

3. suerte (lot-casting) reactivating the baseline’s fatalism fence. Real risk that a translator, seeing “cast lots,” reaches for the natural-sounding “por casualidad” or an unfenced standalone “suerte,” accidentally importing vernacular fatalism into a text about divinely superintended tribal allotment — directly undermining the same doctrine (God’s sovereign, non-arbitrary governance) the baseline already fenced for “providencia” and “elección.” Requires restriction to the fixed idiom and mandatory teaching note at every occurrence (chs. 14, 18-19).

4. dioses / Dios capitalization in Joshua 24. A single dropped or added capital letter in the core passage itself (24:14-16, 20, 23) silently erases the antithesis the whole covenant-renewal speech is built around. Because Hebrew orthography gives translators no orthographic cue, this error is more likely to occur here than almost anywhere else in the curriculum and is easy for an automated or even human reviewer to miss on a fast read. Requires a dedicated automated capitalization-validation pass specific to this chapter, not merely reliance on general proofreading.

5. tierra santa vs. “Tierra Santa” (5:15). Contemporary readers’ overwhelming default association with the modern geopolitical/pilgrimage “Holy Land” is strong enough that even a correctly lowercase rendering may still be misread without an explicit disambiguating note; this is a comprehension risk that persists even after the lexical choice is made correctly, unlike most other entries on this list where the correct lexical choice resolves the risk.

6. arca del pacto vs. “arca de la alianza.” Very high likelihood of accidental substitution given the phrase’s strong independent cultural currency in Spanish-language popular media, independent of any Bible-translation tradition consideration. Requires hard validation, not just glossary reference.

7. escoger (24:15) misread against baseline “elección.” Risk is subtler than the above — not a wrong word, but a wrong theological inference (that human covenant-choosing and divine sovereign election are in tension) if teaching apparatus does not explicitly address the direction-of-agency question. Requires teaching-note discipline more than lexical enforcement.

8. reposo consistency (11:23; 21:44; 22:4). Lower probability of accidental error than items 1-4 (translators are less likely to casually vary a noun than to default to a familiar competing phrase), but if it occurs, it silently severs a deliberately constructed canonical lexical chain extending to Hebrews 3-4 in a future curriculum — a subtle, hard-to-detect failure mode since any of the synonyms (“descanso,” “tranquilidad”) would read as perfectly natural, fluent Spanish in isolation. Requires an automated consistency check across all three occurrences within this book, and a note for future curricula (Hebrews) to preserve the same lexical choice.

9. vengador de la sangre vs. “redentor” (ch. 20). Moderate risk: the positive pull of “Redentor” as an established Christological title makes it a tempting default for any occurrence of the go’el root without careful contextual sense-checking. Requires a standing sense-disambiguation flag for this root wherever it recurs in future curricula (e.g., Ruth), not just within Joshua.

10. ramera softening (ch. 2, 6). Lower doctrinal risk of outright error (a translator is unlikely to accidentally strengthen rather than soften) but real pastoral pressure toward euphemism in delivery/teaching contexts (sermons, children’s curricula adaptations) even where the base text translation itself is correct. Requires an explicit instruction against downstream euphemistic softening in any derivative teaching material, not only in the primary translation.

---

Summary

Joshua’s linguistic terrain differs from the Romans baseline in three structural ways this analysis has surfaced: (1) it requires new transliteration-vs-paraphrase judgment calls the epistolary Romans corpus never raised (proper names, place names, the cherem category); (2) its highest-risk crowding collisions are disproportionately visual/typographic (capitalization) and idiomatic-register (suerte, tierra santa, arca del pacto) rather than purely lexical-doctrinal; and (3) its most consequential consistency requirement (reposo) is a book-internal chain that also reaches forward into a future curriculum (Hebrews) not yet in scope, requiring this analysis to flag that forward dependency explicitly for later Language Package maintainers. All findings here are compatible with and subordinate to the baseline Romans Language Package and the 08_core_glossary.md term list; no ruling in this document overrides either.