Linguistic Gap Analysis
Linguistic Gap Analysis — Philemon (English → Assamese)
Purpose and Scope
Philemon is a short, single-scene personal letter, but its brevity concentrates an unusually high doctrinal density into a small vocabulary set: a master-slave relationship transformed by the gospel, an appeal instead of a command, and forgiveness enacted through a legal-financial metaphor. The core passage (1:8-21) contains almost every load-bearing term in the letter. This analysis covers the whole book (vv.1-25); no verse introduces vocabulary outside what is treated below, and this is noted explicitly per-doctrine rather than silently skipped.
The Assamese linguistic environment for this letter is shaped by three collision zones already flagged in the baseline package and sharpened here:
- The Vaishnavite/Ekasarana “servant” identity (দাস as a devotional self-title, common Sankardev-tradition surname) — directly collides with δοῦλος.
- The Vaishnavite “romantic-devotional” register of love (prema-bhakti, Radha-Krishna literature) — collides with ἀγάπη.
- The jnana-marga/bhakti-marga soteriological framework (knowledge-path vs. devotion-path to moksha) — collides with ἐπίγνωσις and, more distantly, with the letter’s obedience/consent vocabulary if handled loosely.
A fourth, letter-specific risk zone not present in Romans is the appeal-vs-command register, which has no doctrinal collision with Hindu/Vaishnavite vocabulary but has a social collision risk: Assamese formal register (respect-marking verb forms, kinship-status address) can automatically re-introduce hierarchy into a text whose entire rhetorical strategy is to flatten it.
Part 1: Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix
For each of the five assigned doctrines: available Assamese terms, their weaknesses, and the recommended strategy. Where a term is already fixed in the baseline or in the prior Core Glossary (08), that fixing is treated as authoritative and repeated here only to show its role in the gap analysis.
1.1 Forgiveness and Reconciliation
| Available Assamese term(s) | Weakness | Recommended strategy |
|---|---|---|
| ক্ষমা (forgiveness, general) | Adequate for the general concept but not used as the primary registry term for this letter’s specific mechanism of forgiveness (debt-transfer), which is legal-financial, not a bare pardon-word. | Use ক্ষমা only in general narrative/commentary describing the letter’s theme; do NOT use it to translate ἐλλογάω, ὀφείλω, or ἀποτίνω, which require the debt-image vocabulary (ঋণী হৈ থাকা, নামত আৰোপ কৰা, ঘুৰাই দিয়া) fixed in the Core Glossary. |
| অন্যায় কৰা (to wrong) | Precise for interpersonal injury (v.18) but must not be blended with পাপ (sin against God, baseline). | Keep অন্যায় কৰা strictly for interpersonal wrong; reserve পাপ for any commentary that draws out the sin-before-God dimension separately. Do not substitute one for the other mid-passage. |
| ঋণী হৈ থাকা / নামত আৰোপ কৰা / ঘুৰাই দিয়া (debt-transfer cluster, vv.18-19) | No single Assamese word carries “impute a debt to one’s account” — this is a compound legal-financial idiom, unfamiliar in everyday register, that must be built rather than found. | Retain the three-term cluster as fixed in the Core Glossary and bible_term_registry.json. Mandatory commentary note linking নামত আৰোপ কৰা to baseline’s আৰোপিত ধাৰ্মিকতা (imputed righteousness) so learners see the typological connection: Paul does for Onesimus’s debt in miniature what Christ does for the believer’s sin. |
| পৃথক হৈছিল / ঘুৰাই পঠিয়াই দিয়া (providential separation and return, vv.12, 15) | Risk of a fatalistic (ভাগ্য/কৰ্মফল) reading of Onesimus’s flight if the passive voice is handled carelessly. | Follow baseline’s providence caution (ঈশ্বৰৰ বিধান, never ভাগ্য/কৰ্মফল) explicitly in commentary at v.15; the passive verb must be framed as God’s personal governance working through, not excusing, Onesimus’s wrongful flight (still named as অন্যায় in v.18). |
Gap identified: Assamese has generic forgiveness vocabulary but no ready-made legal-financial “imputation” idiom outside the Bible-translation tradition itself. This is a genuine missing-vocabulary problem, not merely a crowded-neighborhood one, and is resolved by controlled compound-building rather than by borrowing from Hindu religious vocabulary (which has no parallel concept — karma-debt is impersonal and self-resolving, not personally assumed by another party, so no existing term should be borrowed here at all).
1.2 Christian Brotherhood across Social Status
| Available Assamese term(s) | Weakness | Recommended strategy |
|---|---|---|
| ভাই / বহিনী (brother/sister) | Ordinary Assamese kinship address is heavily status- and age-marked (elder/younger address forms, caste-inflected politeness registers in some rural contexts). Applying ভাই flatly to a master-slave-turned-brother relationship risks being read as a polite courtesy title rather than a status-transforming claim. | Retain ভাই/বহিনী as fixed, but every occurrence tied to social-status reversal (v.16 especially) requires accompanying commentary insisting on literal kinship-equality force, not honorific politeness. |
| প্ৰিয় ভাই (beloved brother, v.16) | Could be softened by translators toward a stock affectionate phrase, losing its function as the direct antithesis to দাস in the same verse. | Fix প্ৰিয় ভাই as a single unit; never split or paraphrase; commentary must state explicitly that this phrase is Paul’s chosen replacement term for slave-status, not an additional description alongside it. |
| মাংসিকভাৱে (flesh, “in the flesh,” v.16 — natural/social order sense) | Learners cross-trained on a Romans curriculum will default to the “sinful nature” sense of sarx fixed elsewhere in Pauline vocabulary. | Mandatory disambiguating note at first occurrence (already flagged in Core Glossary and registry) — this document reaffirms it as one of this letter’s top cross-contamination risks precisely because of prior Romans-curriculum vocabulary training. |
| চিৰকাললৈ / অলপ সময়ৰ বাবে (eternal vs. for-a-season, v.15) | No inherent weakness in the words themselves; risk is in under-translating চিৰকাললৈ as merely “a long earthly relationship” and missing the possible eschatological horizon. | Keep contrast sharp; commentary may (but need not) gesture toward eternal fellowship in Christ beyond this life. |
Gap identified: No missing vocabulary here — Assamese kinship language is rich — but a crowded semantic neighborhood in the sense that ordinary kinship-address terms carry so much social freight (status, age, sometimes caste-consciousness in village registers) that the text’s radical claim can be silently absorbed into “polite address” rather than heard as status-abolishing kinship. Fencing is required at the pragmatic/register level, not the lexical level.
1.3 Slavery and the Gospel’s Transforming Power
| Available Assamese term(s) | Weakness | Recommended strategy |
|---|---|---|
| দাস (slave/bondservant) | Critical collision. দাস is a live, positive Assamese Vaishnavite devotional self-title (e.g., names ending in -দাস among Sankardev-tradition bhaktas, meaning “servant of God/Krishna”). Rendering δοῦλος as দাস without a note risks the term reading as devotional humility language rather than naming actual chattel slavery. | Retain দাস (no better word exists and none should be invented — see below) but attach a mandatory translator note at every occurrence (not just first use, given the term’s doctrinal centrality to this specific letter) distinguishing historical chattel-slavery referent from devotional self-designation. Human theologian review at every occurrence, per Core Glossary. |
| সেৱা কৰা (to serve/minister, v.13) | Adequate, but must be kept lexically separate from দাস-vocabulary so Paul’s rhetorical shift (service-language before slave-language is directly named) is visible in Assamese as it is in Greek. | Never allow সেৱা কৰা and দাস to be used interchangeably in this letter’s translation. |
| অনুপযোগী / উপযোগী (useless/useful, v.11) | Adequate but functionally opaque without the Onesimus name-pun note, since Assamese cannot reproduce Ὀνήσιμος/ὀνήσιμος wordplay phonetically. | Retain fixed antithetical pair; mandatory note explaining the underlying Greek pun at first occurrence (v.10-11), cross-referenced again at v.20 (ὀναίμην). |
| সন্তান / জন্ম দিয়া (spiritual child / to beget, v.10) | Risk of collision with Ekasarana guru-shishya lineage-adoption (a Satradhikar’s spiritual “sons” in institutional succession) and, more subtly, with a doctrine of literal regeneration that belongs to God alone. | Note distinguishing (a) figurative spiritual fatherhood under Paul’s apostolic ministry from (b) guru-lineage adoption, and from (c) divine regeneration proper. |
Gap identified: This is the letter’s single highest-stakes crowded-neighborhood problem, worse than any comparable term in the baseline Romans package precisely because দাস is not merely adjacent to a devotional concept (as অৱতাৰ is adjacent to দেহধাৰণ) but is the same word already carrying positive devotional content for a large class of Assamese readers. No missing-vocabulary problem exists (দাস is the only workable Assamese word for “slave”); the entire risk is a fencing problem requiring per-occurrence notes rather than a one-time first-use note.
1.4 Intercession and Appeal on Behalf of Another
| Available Assamese term(s) | Weakness | Recommended strategy |
|---|---|---|
| মিনতি কৰা (appeal/beseech, vv.9-10) vs. আজ্ঞা দিয়া (command, contrast, v.8) | Assamese formal registers of address to a social superior or equal-in-status frequently soften commands into polite requests anyway (a general politeness feature, not specific to this text), which can erase the deliberate contrast Paul draws between these two named options. | Both terms must be visible as an explicit named pair in commentary — “Paul names the command-option and refuses it, choosing appeal instead” — so the choice reads as a deliberate rhetorical strategy, not simply default Assamese politeness. |
| নিৰ্ভয়তা (boldness/authority, v.8) | Could be read as ordinary personal confidence/assertiveness if not anchored to “in Christ.” | Keep anchored to ἐν Χριστῷ (apostolic, not personal, authority) at every occurrence; do not let it drift toward a generic courage-word. |
| খ্ৰীষ্ট যীচুৰ বন্দী (prisoner of Christ Jesus, vv.1, 9) | বন্দী alone reads as ordinary civil/criminal prisoner status in Assamese; Paul’s actual claim is a paradoxical possession-claim (belonging to Christ, not Rome). | Possessive খ্ৰীষ্ট যীচুৰ must never be dropped; this is the ground of Paul’s authority to appeal at all. |
| প্ৰাৰ্থনা / মধ্যস্থতা (prayer/intercession, vv.4, 22) | Adequate; baseline’s prayer_and_intercession cautions against ritual-puja or Satradhikar-channeled petition readings apply here without modification. | No new gap; reuse baseline conventions exactly. |
Gap identified: No missing vocabulary. The risk is pragmatic/rhetorical, not lexical: Assamese formal register itself tends to soften commands into requests as a matter of ordinary courtesy, which can accidentally dissolve the very command/appeal distinction the letter is built around. Fencing strategy: commentary-level explicit naming of the contrast, not lexical substitution.
1.5 Grace-Motivated Obedience
| Available Assamese term(s) | Weakness | Recommended strategy |
|---|---|---|
| সন্মতি (consent/will, v.14) | Risk of flattening to mere “opinion” (a natural but doctrinally weaker reading of গ্যোমে/সন্মতি in ordinary usage). | Must be glossed as considered, free personal decision-making, not casual preference. |
| বাধ্যতা (compulsion/necessity, v.14, contrast) | High collision risk: Assamese religious register readily reaches for fate/karma vocabulary (ভাগ্য, কৰ্মফল, নিয়তি, কপাল) when describing external constraint on action — exactly the vocabulary baseline already forbids for grace/providence/election. বাধ্যতা itself is not one of the forbidden words, but a careless translator drifting toward a “natural-sounding” paraphrase could reach for one of them. | Explicit prohibition, extending baseline’s forbidden-substitution list for this curriculum: NEVER ভাগ্য, কৰ্মফল, নিয়তি, or কপাল for ἀνάγκη in v.14. বাধ্যতা must denote specifically coerced interpersonal obligation (Paul refusing to coerce Philemon), not impersonal cosmic necessity. |
| স্বেচ্ছাই (voluntary/willing, v.14) | No major lexical weakness; risk is under-weighting it as mere “willingness” rather than full grace-motivated free action. | Anchor explicitly to অনুগ্ৰহ (grace) already fixed in baseline, so স্বেচ্ছাই is read as the fruit of grace, not autonomous human willpower divorced from grace. |
| আজ্ঞাকাৰিতা (obedience, v.21, root reused from baseline) | Cross-document risk: learners trained on the Romans curriculum will default to reading this as the full compound বিশ্বাসৰ আজ্ঞাকাৰিতা (“obedience of faith,” Romans 1:5/16:26), a specific soteriological confession-obedience. | Commentary must explicitly flag that Philemon’s obedience-word stands alone here, flowing from love/appeal (vv.9, 14) rather than replicating Romans’ formal doctrinal phrase; this is a deliberate narrowing, not an oversight. |
| ঈশ্বৰৰ অনুগ্ৰহত ঘুৰাই দিয়া হ’ম (charizomai echo, v.22) | If translated generically as “I will be freed” (মুক্ত হ’ম), the deliberate χάρις-root wordplay linking v.22 back to vv.3/25 is silently lost. | Fixed compound rendering retained from registry; mandatory note connecting it explicitly to the letter’s opening/closing grace-frame. |
Gap identified: No missing vocabulary, but a directional collision risk distinct from the devotional collisions elsewhere in this letter: the danger here is not a devotional-Vaishnavite collision but a fatalistic/karmic register collision, already flagged at the doctrine level in baseline (providence) but requiring its own explicit forbidden-word extension for this letter’s ἀνάγκη/ἑκούσιον contrast, since that specific contrast does not occur in Romans in this exact form.
Part 2: Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods
2.1 Genuine Missing-Vocabulary Gaps (no adequate existing word; compound-building required)
| Concept | Why no existing word suffices | Resolution |
|---|---|---|
| Legal imputation of a debt to another’s account (ἐλλογάω) | Assamese has ঋণ (debt) and আৰোপ (attribution/imposition) separately but no single existing idiom for “transfer a debt to someone else’s account by legal fiction.” | Compound নামত আৰোপ কৰা, built by reusing baseline’s আৰোপিত root; treat as a controlled coinage requiring theologian sign-off (already flagged High in Core Glossary). |
| The Onesimus name-pun (useful/useless wordplay on a proper name) | No Assamese proper name carries an equivalent lexical meaning; this is not a translation gap so much as an untranslatable structural feature of the Greek text. | Retain transliteration (অনীষিম) plus mandatory explanatory note; do not attempt a “meaningful” invented Assamese name, which would break Bible Society proper-name convention. |
| ”Prisoner of Christ Jesus” as a status-claim distinct from ordinary imprisonment | বন্দী alone is purely civil/legal in ordinary Assamese; there is no existing single word for “belonging-to-Christ-while-imprisoned.” | Fixed possessive-phrase compound (খ্ৰীষ্ট যীচুৰ বন্দী), not a single-word solution; treat the possessive as structurally mandatory, never optional/droppable. |
2.2 Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods (adequate word exists, but shares territory with a distinct doctrinal or religious concept and must be fenced)
| Assamese term | Crowded with | Fencing strategy |
|---|---|---|
| দাস | Vaishnavite/Ekasarana devotional self-title (“servant of Krishna/God”), common as a lineage-surname | Mandatory note at every occurrence (not just first use), given this letter’s unusually concentrated doctrinal reliance on the term; theologian review every occurrence |
| প্ৰেম | Prema-bhakti romantic/devotional love in Vaishnavite Bhaona and poetic tradition (Radha-Krishna literature) | Note at first occurrence; consider পairing with নিঃস্বাৰ্থ প্ৰেম or খ্ৰীষ্টীয় প্ৰেম in any passage where romantic-devotional misreading is plausible (vv.5, 7, 9) |
| পৰিপূর্ণ জ্ঞান (epignōsis) | jnana-marga, the philosophical knowledge-path to moksha in Hindu soteriology, standing alongside bhakti-marga as a rival path | Note at v.6 distinguishing relational/experiential knowledge of Christ’s finished work from a self-attained liberating philosophical insight |
| সন্তান / জন্ম দিয়া | Ekasarana guru-shishya institutional lineage-adoption (Satradhikar succession) | Note at v.10 distinguishing Paul’s figurative spiritual fatherhood from institutional guru-lineage and from divine regeneration proper |
| মাংসিকভাৱে (sarx, natural-order sense) | The “flesh = sinful nature” sense elsewhere in Pauline theology (especially salient given cross-training on a Romans curriculum) | Note at v.16 explicitly ruling out the sinful-nature reading for this specific occurrence |
| বাধ্যতা (anankē) | ভাগ্য/কৰ্মফল/নিয়তি/কপাল — fate, karma-fruit, destiny vocabulary | Extend baseline’s forbidden-substitution list explicitly for this curriculum at v.14; treat as an active prohibition, not merely a stylistic preference |
| আজ্ঞাকাৰিতা (obedience, v.21) | Baseline’s fixed compound বিশ্বাসৰ আজ্ঞাকাৰিতা (Romans 1:5/16:26) | Note distinguishing this letter’s love/appeal-rooted obedience from the Romans thesis-statement compound; do not silently assume identity of sense across documents sharing a root word |
| ভাই/বহিনী (brotherhood language, v.16 especially) | Ordinary Assamese status-marked kinship address (age, social rank, occasionally caste-consciousness in rural registers) | Commentary-level fencing insisting on literal status-transforming force at v.16, not mere honorific politeness |
Observation: Philemon’s crowded-neighborhood risks split into two clearly distinguishable clusters — (a) devotional/Vaishnavite collisions (দাস, প্ৰেম, সন্তান/জন্ম দিয়া, পৰিপূর্ণ জ্ঞান), which are the dominant risk type inherited from the baseline package’s general profile, and (b) a fatalistic/karmic register collision unique to this letter’s obedience-vocabulary (বাধ্যতা), which is a narrower extension of the baseline’s providence caution into new territory (interpersonal, not cosmic, compulsion).
Part 3: Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions
| Item | Decision | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Ὀνήσιμος (Onesimus) | Transliterate: অনীষিম | Established Bible Society proper-name convention (per baseline’s David/Israel/Isaiah pattern); paraphrasing a proper name to preserve a pun (“Mr. Useful”) would break convention and read as absurd in formal Assamese narrative register. Compensate for the lost pun with a mandatory explanatory note, not an invented meaningful name. |
| δοῦλος (slave) | Do not transliterate; use existing word (দাস) with mandatory fencing note | No Greek-derived transliteration tradition exists for this common noun in Assamese Bible usage; inventing one would be unintelligible to readers and contrary to the whole ABS translation tradition of using natural target-language vocabulary for common nouns. The correct strategy is fencing, not transliteration. |
| ἐλλογάω (impute to account) | Paraphrase as controlled compound (নামত আৰোপ কৰা) | This is a legal-technical verb with no single-word Assamese equivalent; paraphrase using an already-fixed baseline root (আৰোপ) is preferable to either a bare transliteration (unintelligible) or a loose colloquial paraphrase (would lose the imputation-typology link to baseline’s imputed_righteousness). |
| παρρησία (boldness/authority) | Paraphrase (নিৰ্ভয়তা), anchored contextually to “in Christ” | A common Assamese abstract noun already exists and functions well once anchored; transliteration is unnecessary and would obscure meaning for the target reading-level (Class 8–10 per baseline reading-level target). |
| χάρις-echo verb χαρίζομαι/χαρισθήσομαι (v.22) | Paraphrase as a compound phrase built on the fixed grace-root, not a bare “I will be freed” | Preserves the deliberate wordplay across vv.3, 22, 25; a plain paraphrase divorced from অনুগ্ৰহ would sever the letter’s grace-frame, which is a doctrinal loss, not merely a stylistic one. |
| Ἀββά-style intimate address terms | Not present in Philemon — noted for completeness | Philemon contains no Aramaic transliteration comparable to Romans’ আব্বা; no decision required here, but this is flagged explicitly rather than silently omitted, per full-coverage mandate. |
| Standard proper names (Paul, Timothy, Apphia, Archippus, Onesimus, Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke, Epaphras) | Transliterate per Assamese Bible Society convention | পৌল, তীমথি, আপ্পিয়া, আৰ্খিপ্পো, অনীষিম, মাৰ্ক, আৰিষ্টাৰ্খ, দীমা, লূক, ইপাফ্রা — consistent with baseline’s established proper-name transliteration policy (e.g., দায়ূদ, মোচি, যিচয়া). Full name-list to be finalized and locked in the Phase 1 Step onboarding update to translation_memory.json. |
Part 4: Ranked List of This Letter’s Highest-Risk Ambiguities
Ranked by combined severity (doctrinal centrality × collision likelihood × frequency of occurrence in the core passage 1:8-21).
-
δοῦλος → দাস (v.16) — Critical. The single highest risk in the entire curriculum. A common, positive Assamese Vaishnavite devotional self-title occupies the identical lexical slot required for the letter’s central social-transformation claim. Unlike the baseline’s দেহধাৰণ/অৱতাৰ problem (where the forbidden word is simply avoided), here there is no alternative word to reach for — দাস must be used, and the entire safeguard rests on mandatory per-occurrence translator notes and theologian review. Highest risk of silent syncretistic misreading in the whole letter.
-
ἀγάπη → প্ৰেম (vv.5, 7, 9) — High. The word itself is unavoidable and correct, but sits inside an extremely active Assamese Vaishnavite poetic and performance tradition (Bhaona, Radha-Krishna prema-bhakti literature) that could reframe Paul’s appeal as romantic-devotional sentiment rather than covenantal self-giving love. Three occurrences in the core passage alone raise the stakes.
-
ἀνάγκη vs. ἑκούσιον (v.14) — High. The letter’s single sharpest doctrinal contrast (compulsion vs. free grace-response) is vulnerable to an almost invisible drift toward fate/karma vocabulary that Assamese speakers reach for naturally and unreflectively when describing external constraint — a drift that would not look like an error to an untrained translator, making it more dangerous than an overtly forbidden term like অৱতাৰ, which at least announces itself as wrong.
-
παρακαλῶ vs. ἐπιτάσσω/ἀνῆκον (v.8-10) — High. Ordinary Assamese formal politeness register habitually softens commands into polite requests as a matter of course, which risks erasing — not corrupting, but flattening — the very rhetorical distinction the letter depends on. This is a subtler risk than a lexical collision: the danger is that both options end up sounding identical in natural Assamese phrasing unless commentary intervenes.
-
ἐλλογάω / imputation typology (v.18) — High. Not a collision risk but a comprehension-gap risk: without the mandatory note connecting নামত আৰোপ কৰা back to baseline’s আৰোপিত ধাৰ্মিকতা, the typological weight of Paul’s offer (a small-scale enactment of substitutionary imputation) will simply not register with the reader, reducing a rich doctrinal moment to a mundane financial promise.
-
ἐπίγνωσις → পৰিপূর্ণ জ্ঞান (v.6) — Medium-High. জ্ঞান’s status as a rival soteriological path (jnana-marga) in the wider Assamese Hindu religious landscape creates a real but lower-frequency risk than items 1-5, since it occurs only once in the letter and the note required is more easily supplied than the pervasive দাস/প্ৰেম risks.
-
σάρξ → মাংসিকভাৱে (v.16) — Medium. Risk is specifically cross-curricular: learners moving between this Philemon material and a Romans curriculum are the primary vulnerable population, since sarx’s “sinful nature” sense is well-established there and could bleed into this occurrence without an explicit note.
-
χωρίζω (passive, v.15) and the providence/fate boundary — Medium. Lower risk than the compulsion/necessity pair in v.14 because it is a single, isolated occurrence and the baseline’s providence-language conventions already anticipate this exact collision type; still requires active vigilance since it directly concerns Onesimus’s moral responsibility for his own flight.
-
δέσμιος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ (vv.1, 9) — dropped possessive risk — Medium. Risk is mechanical (a translator or later editor abbreviating খ্ৰীষ্ট যীচুৰ বন্দী to bare বন্দী for brevity) rather than conceptual; flagged here to ensure Phase 2 automated validation checks for the possessive’s presence at every occurrence.
-
τέκνον/γεννάω → সন্তান/জন্ম দিয়া (v.10) — Medium-Low. Genuine but narrower collision with guru-shishya lineage-adoption; lower risk than items above because the concept of spiritual “children” under a teacher’s ministry is not entirely absent from general Assamese Christian usage already, reducing the likelihood of total misreading even without the note (though the note remains mandatory).
Part 5: Full-Book Coverage Confirmation
All 25 verses of Philemon have been reviewed for vocabulary and doctrinal-risk content:
- vv.1-3 (greeting, prisoner-of-Christ, church, grace/peace formula): covered — reuses baseline formula terms exactly; new element is খ্ৰীষ্ট যীচুৰ বন্দী (item 9 above).
- vv.4-7 (thanksgiving, faith, love, fellowship, refreshed hearts): covered — ἀγάπη (item 2), ἐπίγνωσις (item 6), κοινωνία (reused), σπλάγχνα/ἀναπαύω/χαρά (Medium, no new gap beyond consistency requirement).
- vv.8-16 (core passage — appeal, authority, Onesimus’s conversion and name-pun, consent/compulsion, slave-to-brother transformation): covered in full detail — items 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10 above.
- v.17-19 (partnership, debt, imputation, guarantee): covered — κοινωνός, ἀδικέω, ὀφείλω, ἐλλογάω (item 5), ἀποτίνω, προσοφείλω.
- vv.20-21 (refresh again, confidence, obedience): covered — ἀναπαύω consistency requirement, πεποιθώς (interpersonal vs. saving faith distinction), ὑπακοή cross-document distinction (Part 1.5).
- v.22 (hospitality, hoped-for visit, χαρίζομαι grace-echo, prayer): covered — ξενία (low risk, positive cultural bridge), χαρίζομαι-echo (Part 3).
- vv.23-24 (fellow-prisoner, fellow-workers greetings): covered — συναιχμάλωτος, συνεργός; low risk, reviewed and noted with no new gap beyond consistent proper-name transliteration.
- v.25 (closing grace benediction, human spirit): covered — grace formula consistency requirement (baseline), πνεῦμα human-spirit sense explicitly distinguished from Holy Spirit and from Vedantic paramatma reading (Part 1, baseline registry entry
spirit_human).
No chapter or section of this one-chapter letter contributes vocabulary outside the scope already analyzed above; this constitutes full-book coverage per the PRD Phase 1 mandate.
This analysis extends, and must never contradict, the baseline translation_memory.json, bible_term_registry.json, and doctrine_risk_registry.json, together with this curriculum’s analysis/08_core_glossary.md and assets/bible_term_registry.json. All fencing notes and forbidden-substitution extensions identified here must be carried forward into the Phase 1 Step 9-12 artifacts (doctrine risk registry update, AI translation requirements) before Phase 2 translation begins.