Linguistic Gap Analysis
06 Linguistic Gap Analysis: 2 Peter (English–Bengali)
Purpose and Scope
2 Peter is theologically dense in a small compass (3 chapters, 61 verses) and introduces a distinct vocabulary cluster not present in Romans: apostolic eyewitness testimony, the mechanics of prophetic inspiration, a technical Greek term for partaking in God’s own nature, and a concentrated eschatological vocabulary (parousia, Day of the Lord, cosmic dissolution, new heavens and new earth). Where Romans’ primary syncretism pressure point was soteriological vocabulary (grace, righteousness, salvation) colliding with karma/merit frameworks, 2 Peter’s primary pressure points are:
- Epistemological — how do we know Scripture is true and Christ will return? (chs. 1, 3)
- Ontological — what does it mean to “partake of the divine nature”? (1:4)
- Cosmological/eschatological — what kind of “day,” what kind of “ending,” what kind of “time”? (ch. 3)
This document performs the Step 8 linguistic gap analysis: a doctrine vocabulary matrix, an inventory of missing vocabulary against crowded semantic neighborhoods requiring fencing, a transliteration-vs-paraphrase decision log, and a ranked list of the letter’s highest-risk ambiguities. It covers all three chapters of 2 Peter in full; no chapter is silently omitted (see the Full-Book Coverage Ledger, §6).
1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix
| Doctrine | Available Bengali Term(s) | Weaknesses / Collision Risk | Recommended Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reliability and Inspiration of Scripture | পবিত্রশাস্ত্র (Scripture); ভাববাণী (prophecy); ভাববাণীর বচন (prophetic word); পবিত্র আত্মার দ্বারা চালিত হয়ে (carried along by the Spirit); ব্যক্তিগত/নিজস্ব ব্যাখ্যা (private interpretation); মানুষের ইচ্ছা (will of man); প্রত্যক্ষদর্শী (eyewitness); অধিক দৃঢ়/নিশ্চিত (more sure) | (a) শাস্ত্র alone is generic in Bengali and covers Hindu smriti/śāstra literature broadly — hence পবিত্র is mandatory every time, no exceptions. (b) “carried along” (φέρω) must not read as either Qur’anic dictation (mechanical, no human voice) or Hindu śruti (impersonal timeless hearing); Bengali has no single native word that already encodes “organic superintendence,” so a periphrastic verb phrase is required. (c) “private interpretation” is the single highest-stakes phrase: too broad a rendering forbids ordinary personal Bible reading (contradicting mainstream Bengali Protestant devotional practice); too narrow a rendering permits guru/pir-style self-authorizing revelation. | Retain all fixed [NEW] renderings from the core glossary exactly. Mandate a translator’s explanatory footnote at every occurrence of ব্যক্তিগত/নিজস্ব ব্যাখ্যা and পবিত্র আত্মার দ্বারা চালিত হয়ে distinguishing this doctrine from (i) Qur’anic wahy/tanzīl dictation and (ii) Vedic śruti. Theologian review mandatory at both terms per baseline escalation convention. |
| Growing in Christian Virtue | বিশ্বাস (faith); সদগুণ (virtue); পরিপূর্ণ জ্ঞান (full knowledge); আত্মসংযম (self-control); ধৈর্য (perseverance); ঈশ্বরভক্তি (godliness); ভ্রাতৃপ্রেম (brotherly love); প্রেম (love); জ্ঞান (knowledge); বৃদ্ধি পাওয়া (grow); সমমূল্য (equal standing) | (a) সদগুণ risks being heard through the Hindu triguṇa (sattva/rajas/tamas) framework — an impersonal cosmic quality rather than a personally cultivated Christian virtue rooted in relationship with God. (b) ঈশ্বরভক্তি still carries residual bhakti-devotional colour (personal loving devotion to a chosen iṣṭa-devatā, e.g., Krishna-bhakti) even with the compound qualifier. (c) জ্ঞান risks a jñāna-mārga (“path of knowledge” as one of the three classical Hindu margas) or a Gnostic-adjacent “secret knowledge” reading if left unanchored to ordinary moral fruit. | Anchor সদগুণ, ঈশ্বরভক্তি, and জ্ঞান contextually to the specific virtue-chain structure of 1:5-8 (a sequential, cumulative moral growth in relationship to Christ, not an impersonal quality-state or an esoteric attainment). Native-speaker review recommended at every ঈশ্বরভক্তি occurrence; flag but do not require theologian review, since risk is contextual-clarity rather than doctrine-destroying. |
| False Teachers and Their Judgment | মিথ্যা শিক্ষক (false teacher); সর্বনাশা ভ্রান্ত মতবাদ (destructive heresy); প্রভু (+ ক্রয়কারী স্বামী নোট) (Master/despotēs); বিনাশ (destruction); স্বেচ্ছাচারিতা (sensuality); বিচার/দণ্ড (judgment); অন্ধকারের অতল গহ্বরে বন্দী করা (Tartarus); ভ্রান্তি (error) | (a) In a religiously plural Bengali context where differing “paths” (sampradāya in Hinduism, madhab in Islam) are commonly treated as equally legitimate variants of one truth, সর্বনাশা ভ্রান্ত মতবাদ risks softening toward neutral “a different opinion” if translators default to milder vocabulary under social pressure. (b) নরক must never be used for the Tartarus-binding image (2:4): it imports the Hindu/Buddhist cosmology of graded karmic hells with rebirth-calibrated torments, contradicting the once-for-all, single-judgment framework 2 Peter assumes. | Retain the strong moral-culpability force of মিথ্যা শিক্ষক and সর্বনাশা ভ্রান্ত মতবাদ without euphemism; flag any Phase 2 output that softens toward “ভিন্ন মত” (a mere differing view) for theologian review. Maintain the periphrastic Tartarus rendering (never নরক) as fixed. |
| The Certainty of Christ’s Return | আগমন (parousia/coming); উপহাসকারী (scoffer); প্রতিশ্রুতি (promise); মহিমা (glory/majesty, Transfiguration preview); শুকতারা (morning star) | (a) আগমন could be read as a generic “arrival” unless consistently paired with personal, bodily, visible qualifiers in surrounding context. (b) Risk of collapse with the Islamic eschatology of Isa’s return: under Islamic theology Isa returns as a righteous prophet-judge who dies a natural death and is raised at the general resurrection — not as the divine Son consummating his own previously promised parousia. (c) শুকতারা (morning star, Venus) must not acquire an astrological/omen-reading connotation, which would blur প্রফেসি (prophecy) with গণনা (astrological divination), already fenced off in the baseline. | Require an accompanying qualifying clause (“সশরীরে ও দৃশ্যমানভাবে,” “in bodily and visible form”) the first time আগমন appears in any Phase 2 document teaching this doctrine. Theologian review mandatory wherever 3:3-4’s scoffer material is discussed alongside any Muslim-background pastoral framing. |
| The Day of the Lord and Final Judgment | প্রভুর দিন (Day of the Lord); বিচারের দিন (day of judgment); জলপ্রলয় (flood); মৌলিক উপাদান (elements); নতুন আকাশমণ্ডল ও নতুন পৃথিবী (new heavens and new earth); চোরের মতো (like a thief) | (a) প্রভুর দিন must be fenced against both the Islamic Yawm al-Qiyāmah (a weighed-deeds judgment day framework) and the Hindu/cyclical pralaya (periodic cosmic dissolution and re-creation within an endless cycle). Bengali has no native single term that already excludes both associations. (b) নতুন আকাশমণ্ডল ও নতুন পৃথিবী must be read as a single, final, unrepeated renewal, not one phase within a repeating creation-dissolution cycle — the same fencing problem as (a), transposed to the positive consummation. | Treat প্রভুর দিন as Critical risk (already so tiered in the 2 Peter term registry) requiring mandatory theologian review at every occurrence, not merely the core-passage occurrences. Pair with a standing translator note distinguishing singular/final/personal from cyclical/impersonal in any teaching document that unpacks ch. 3. |
| Patience of God’s Timing | সহনশীলতা/ধৈর্য (patience/makrothymia); মন-পরিবর্তন (repentance); বিনষ্ট হওয়া (perish); প্রভুর কাছে একদিন হাজার বছরের সমান (a day as a thousand years) | (a) “A day as a thousand years” (3:8) is the single sharpest collision point with Hindu cyclical cosmology: yugas and kalpas already describe vast, repeating cosmic ages in Bengali Hindu popular knowledge, and an unglossed rendering could be heard as Scripture endorsing the same cyclical framework rather than a personal God’s linear, purposeful patience toward a single future consummation. (b) মন-পরিবর্তন was deliberately chosen over বare অনুতাপ (mere emotional remorse) but risk remains that readers collapse it back to simple regret without the volitional whole-person reorientation 2 Peter intends. | Mandatory translator note at 3:8 distinguishing personal, purposeful divine forbearance from impersonal cyclical time-reckoning. Reinforce মন-পরিবর্তন consistently as a compound verb phrase (turning of mind AND direction), never abbreviated. Both terms High risk; theologian review at 3:8-9. |
| Divine Nature and Escaping Corruption | ঈশ্বরিক প্রকৃতি (divine nature); সহভাগী (partaker); ক্ষয়/বিনাশ (corruption); কামনা/অভিলাষ (desire/lust); স্বাধীনতা (freedom); দাসত্বে বদ্ধ হওয়া (enslaved) | (a) ঈশ্বরিক প্রকৃতি + সহভাগী together form the single highest-risk doctrinal claim in the entire letter: “partakers of the divine nature” (1:4) is acutely vulnerable to an Advaita Vedanta ātman-Brahman identity reading (“tat tvam asi” — the self is, in essence, the Absolute), a framework deeply embedded in Bengali Hindu popular religious literacy even outside strict philosophical circles. (b) There is no existing Bengali Christian theological vocabulary that pre-emptively blocks this reading; the term is genuinely new territory beyond anything the Romans baseline addressed. | Treat ঈশ্বরিক প্রকৃতি and সহভাগী as Critical risk requiring mandatory theologian sign-off at every occurrence, not merely a flag. Every teaching document unpacking 1:4 must carry an explicit clarifying note: believers share God’s moral character and incorruptible life by grace and union with Christ; they remain creatures and never become divine in essence. This note is theological guardrail content, not merely a translation footnote, and should appear in the lesson body itself, not only in the translator-note layer. |
2. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods
2a. Genuinely Missing Vocabulary (no prior Romans-package equivalent)
These concepts do not appear in the Romans baseline at all and required new coinage for this curriculum. Because they are new, they carry elevated risk simply from lack of established precedent in Bengali Bible translation tradition for this specific curriculum’s register:
| Concept | Gap Type | Resolution |
|---|---|---|
| σωτήρ as a distinct title from κύριος, joined to θεός in a single-referent construction (1:1) | No existing baseline slot; Romans never uses “Savior” as a stand-alone recurring title | Coined ত্রাণকর্তা; fixed as part of the compound title প্রভু ও ত্রাণকর্তা যীশু খ্রীষ্ট, reused identically at 1:11, 2:20, 3:18, with the 1:1 variant (আমাদের ঈশ্বর ও ত্রাণকর্তা যীশু খ্রীষ্ট) engineered to preserve the single-referent (Sharp’s-rule) force |
| θεία φύσις / κοινωνός — “partakers of the divine nature” (1:4) | No baseline slot exists for a participatory-ontology claim of this kind; Romans’ adoption/sonship language is relational-legal, not this kind of shared-nature language | Coined ঈশ্বরিক প্রকৃতি / সহভাগী as Critical-risk paired terms with mandatory guardrail notes (see §1 above) |
| ἐπόπτης — formal eyewitness testimony as a ground of apostolic authority (1:16) | Romans grounds Paul’s authority in calling/apostleship (আহুত/প্রেরিত), not eyewitness perception | Coined প্রত্যক্ষদর্শী; must retain the formal/official nuance, not a merely casual “I saw it” |
| βεβαιότερος — a comparative claim about the relative certainty of two forms of revelation (1:19) | No comparable comparative-certainty claim in Romans | Coined অধিক দৃঢ়/নিশ্চিত; comparative force is doctrinally load-bearing and must not be softened to a flat “sure” |
| ἡμέρα κυρίου as a fixed OT-derived eschatological technical term, distinct from a generic “day of judgment” (3:10) | Romans never uses this specific OT-rooted phrase | Coined প্রভুর দিন as a Critical, fixed technical term distinct from বিচারের দিন |
| δεσπότης as a distinct word from κύριος carrying ownership-by-purchase force (2:1) | Romans’ κύριος usage never required distinguishing a second “Master” term | Reused প্রভু but mandated an obligatory ownership-clause supplement rather than a new stand-alone word, to avoid multiplying near-synonyms that would confuse readers about how many distinct “lord” concepts are in play |
2b. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods Requiring Fencing
These are concepts where Bengali already has multiple competing words, each carrying baggage from a different religious tradition, such that the correct choice must be actively defended rather than assumed:
| Bengali Word-Field | Competing Traditions Present | Fencing Decision |
|---|---|---|
| শাস্ত্র / পবিত্রশাস্ত্র | Hindu śāstra corpus (Vedas, Purāṇas, Manusmṛti, Bhagavad Gītā are all called শাস্ত্র); Islamic কিতাব/গ্রন্থ terminology exists in parallel | পবিত্র qualifier is non-negotiable at every occurrence of γραφή; বare শাস্ত্র is never acceptable standing alone as a translation of “Scripture” |
| ভক্তি / ঈশ্বরভক্তি | Hindu bhakti-mārga (devotional path) traditions, especially Vaishnava Krishna-bhakti, deeply embedded in Bengali vernacular religious culture (Chaitanya Vaishnavism originated in Bengal) | ঈশ্বরভক্তি compound is mandatory; bare ভক্তি never acceptable for εὐσέβεια. Even so, this is the one High-risk term in this matrix where the compound only partially resolves the collision — flag for ongoing native-speaker monitoring across Phase 2 output, not just at first occurrence |
| জ্ঞান / gnosis-vocabulary | Hindu jñāna-mārga (path of knowledge, one of the three classical margas alongside bhakti and karma); also historical Gnostic (Greek) associations relevant to 2 Peter’s own polemical context | Contextual anchoring to ordinary, morally fruitful knowledge of God required at every occurrence; no separate esoteric-sounding coinage should ever be substituted |
| নরক / hell-vocabulary | Hindu/Buddhist graded, karma-calibrated hells across rebirth cycles; Islamic Jahannam with its own distinct furnace/layers imagery | নরক is fenced out entirely for ταρταρόω (2:4); the periphrastic অন্ধকারের অতল গহ্বরে বন্দী করা is required instead, to avoid importing either non-Christian afterlife cosmology |
| আগমন / এসেছেন / উপস্থিতি (coming/presence vocabulary) | Islamic eschatological return-of-Isa vocabulary carries its own settled Bengali Muslim idiom (ঈসার পুনরাগমন) built on a non-divine Christology | আগমন retained as fixed rendering of παρουσία, but never permitted to merge silently with the Muslim-idiom ঈসার পুনরাগমন phrase or framework; if outreach material addresses Muslim-background readers directly, a clarifying note on the divine, self-consummating nature of Christ’s parousia is required per baseline convention |
| মহিমা (used for both δόξα and μεγαλειότης, 1:16-17) | No external religious collision, but an internal Bengali-rendering crowding: two distinct Greek words sharing one Bengali word within four verses | Deliberate, not accidental; flagged in translator notes at every co-occurrence so the overlap reads as an intentional stylistic economy rather than an unnoticed inconsistency |
| প্রভু (used for both κύριος and δεσπότης, 2:1) | Internal crowding: two distinct Greek words for “Lord/Master” collapsed to one Bengali word | Resolved by mandatory ownership-clause supplement at δεσπότης occurrences (see §2a); flag if any Phase 2 segment drops the supplementary clause |
| ধৈর্য (used for both ὑπομονή in the ch. 1 virtue chain and as an alternate rendering of μακροθυμία in ch. 3) | Internal crowding: two distinct Greek virtue-words risk visual/lexical merger if ধৈর্য alone is used for both | Fixed as ধৈর্য for ὑπομονή and সহনশীলতা/ধৈর্য (compound) for μακροθυμία; documents containing both terms must keep this distinction visible, per the term registry’s explicit flag |
3. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions
2 Peter’s proper names are almost entirely OT figures with settled Bengali Bible forms (see §6 chapter ledger); the substantive transliteration-vs-paraphrase decisions in this letter concern technical Greek theological vocabulary, not proper nouns.
| Term | Decision | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| παρουσία (parousia) | Paraphrase (আগমন), not transliteration | A transliterated “পারুসিয়া” would be theologically opaque to a Bengali reader with no Greek background and would forfeit the concrete “coming/arrival” force the doctrine needs; আগমন is already the established Bengali Christian eschatological term for Christ’s return and requires no new coinage risk. |
| μεγαλοπρεπὴς δόξα (Majestic Glory title) | Paraphrase (মহিমাময় পরম প্রতাপ), not transliteration or single-word gloss | This is a reverential periphrasis for God the Father in the source text itself; Bengali must likewise use a periphrastic, personal-sounding title rather than a flat abstract noun, to preserve the sense of address to a Person. |
| Ἀββά-style retained transliterations (cf. baseline আব্বা) | Not applicable in 2 Peter (no Aramaic terms occur) | Noted for completeness: the baseline’s precedent of retaining Aramaic transliteration where doctrinally warranted (আব্বা, Romans 8:15) does not recur in this letter; no analogous decision point exists. |
| Ταρταρόω (Tartarus-binding) | Paraphrase (অন্ধকারের অতল গহ্বরে বন্দী করা), explicitly rejecting transliteration | Transliterating “Tartarus” would be meaningless to a Bengali reader (it is a proper noun from Greek mythology, not a doctrinal term with inherent content); a descriptive paraphrase conveys the functional meaning (a dark, confining holding-place) without importing either the Greek mythological underworld or the Hindu/Buddhist hell-cosmology риск already fenced off in §2b. |
| ἐπόπτης (eyewitness) | Paraphrase (প্রত্যক্ষদর্শী), standard Bengali compound, not transliteration | Fully expressible in native Bengali morphology (প্রত্যক্ষ + দর্শী); transliteration would add no clarity and only obscure meaning. |
| Ἀμήν / Ἁλληλουϊά-type doxological transliterations (cf. baseline আমেন, হাল্লিলূয়া) | Not present as standalone exclamations in 2 Peter, but the closing doxology (3:18b) uses standard doxological register | Confirmed: no new transliteration decision required; if a document appends “Amen” outside the literal text (as some study editions do), use the baseline’s established আমেন. |
| σωτήρ (Savior) | Paraphrase (ত্রাণকর্তা), not transliteration | Fully native Bengali Christian coinage (ত্রাণ + কর্তা, “deliverance-giver”), consistent in register with পরিত্রাণ already fixed in the baseline for σωτηρία; transliteration was never a live option since the concept is thoroughly nativized in Bengali Christian usage already. |
General principle applied: 2 Peter contains no live transliteration candidates of the Romans আব্বা type (i.e., no case where the foreignness of a term is doctrinally load-bearing or pastorally warming). Every technical term in this letter is better served by a semantically transparent Bengali paraphrase than by a transliteration, because none of 2 Peter’s key terms depend on preserving a specific non-Bengali sound-form for their doctrinal force (contrast Romans’ আব্বা, where the sound-form itself carries filial warmth transferable across the Bengali Muslim/Christian linguistic boundary).
4. Ranked List of This Letter’s Highest-Risk Ambiguities
Ranked by combined severity (doctrine-destroying potential) and probability (how easily a well-intentioned but uninformed translator could default to a risky rendering):
-
“Partakers of the divine nature” (θείας φύσεως κοινωνοί, 1:4) — ঈশ্বরিক প্রকৃতি / সহভাগী. Highest risk in the letter. A Bengali reader steeped in Advaita Vedanta’s ātman-Brahman identity teaching can hear this verse as confirming exactly the monistic self-deification 2 Peter’s own moral-participation framing excludes. No existing Bengali Christian vocabulary pre-empts this reading; guardrail content must be built into the lesson body, not left to a footnote. Mandatory theologian review, every occurrence.
-
“No prophecy… was produced by the will of man” / “not a matter of one’s own interpretation” (1:20-21) — ব্যক্তিগত/নিজস্ব ব্যাখ্যা and পবিত্র আত্মার দ্বারা চালিত হয়ে. The core passage’s central claim. Over-rendering forbids ordinary Bible reading; under-rendering legitimizes guru/pir-style private revelation. Both errors are pastorally live in the Bengali context. Mandatory theologian review, every occurrence.
-
“Our God and Savior Jesus Christ” (1:1) vs. “our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (1:11; 2:20; 3:18) — the single-referent Sharp’s-rule construction in 1:1 is a Deity-of-Christ claim as strong as anything in Romans, but the compound-title consistency requirement (identical rendering across all four occurrences) creates a real risk that a translator “fixes” perceived awkwardness in 1:1 by splitting God and Savior into two referents, silently weakening the claim. Mandatory theologian review at 1:1 specifically; automated consistency check across all four occurrences.
-
“The day of the Lord will come like a thief… the heavens will pass away… the earth and the works done on it will be exposed” (3:10) and “a day is with the Lord as a thousand years” (3:8) — প্রভুর দিন and প্রভুর কাছে একদিন হাজার বছরের সমান. Bengal’s dual exposure to Hindu cyclical cosmology (yuga/kalpa) and Islamic Yawm al-Qiyāmah creates a two-front fencing problem unique to this letter; Romans never required fencing against a cyclical time framework. Mandatory theologian review; standing translator note required in every teaching document unpacking ch. 3.
-
“Scoffers will come… saying, ‘Where is the promise of his coming?’” (3:3-4) read against Islamic eschatological expectation of Isa’s return — আগমন / প্রতিশ্রুতি. Because Bengali Muslim readers already possess a settled idiom for “the return of Isa” built on a non-divine Christology, there is a real risk that Phase 2 material addressed to a mixed or Muslim-background audience is heard as affirming a shared eschatological framework that does not, in fact, exist. Theologian review required wherever this passage is paired with Muslim-background pastoral application.
-
“Godliness” (εὐσέβεια, 1:3,6,7; 2:9; 3:11) — ঈশ্বরভক্তি. Lower doctrinal stakes than #1-5 (this is a virtue term, not a Christological or eschatological claim), but its risk is persistent rather than acute: every one of its five occurrences carries some residual Krishna-bhakti devotional colour that a single glossary fix cannot fully neutralize. Native-speaker review at every occurrence; theologian review not required unless paired with a doctrinally load-bearing context (e.g., 2:9’s contrast with the ungodly).
-
“Tartarus”-binding of the angels (2:4) — the periphrastic rendering is settled, but the temptation to reach for the far more natural-sounding নরক under translation-fatigue in a long chapter-2 judgment passage is real. Automated forbidden-term check should flag নরক wherever ταρταρόω’s context is present; native-speaker review otherwise sufficient.
-
δεσπότης vs. κύριος (2:1) — both rendered প্রভু, distinguished only by an appended ownership-clause. Risk is that a busy Phase 2 translator drops the clause under stylistic pressure, silently erasing the text’s own two-term contrast between generic supreme Lordship and the specific purchase-ownership claim. Native-speaker review; flag any occurrence of δεσπότης missing its ownership clause for correction before acceptance.
-
ἰσχύς vs. δύναμις (2:11) — বল vs. সামর্থ্য. Lower stakes (no external religious collision), but internal to the text: 2 Peter itself is making a deliberate two-term comparison (angels exceed the false teachers in both ἰσχύς and δύναμις), and Bengali synonym-drift could blur this into a single flattened concept. Automated consistency check sufficient; native-speaker spot-check recommended.
-
μεγαλειότης vs. δόξα sharing মহিমা (1:16-17) — lowest-ranked ambiguity on this list precisely because the overlap is a deliberate, sanctioned stylistic choice (see §2b) rather than an unresolved doctrinal collision; included here only to ensure Phase 2 reviewers do not mistake the intentional overlap for an error requiring “correction” into two artificially different words. Automated review with a standing translator note; no elevated review required.
5. Summary Risk Distribution for This Curriculum
| Risk Tier | New Terms Introduced by 2 Peter (this analysis) | Cumulative with Baseline [TM: reused] Terms |
|---|---|---|
| Critical | 6 (savior/lord-and-savior title, prophecy-origin pair [private interpretation + carried along], divine nature + partaker pair, Day of the Lord) | 13 |
| High | ~24 (see core glossary and term registry for full listing) | ~46 |
| Medium | ~18 | ~26 |
| Low | ~14 | ~17 |
This distribution confirms 2 Peter carries a proportionally higher concentration of Critical-risk new vocabulary than Romans did per chapter, driven almost entirely by chapter 1’s dense cluster of inspiration-of-Scripture and divine-nature vocabulary in the core passage and its immediate surrounding verses. Phase 2 review routing should weight ch. 1 accordingly.
6. Full-Book Coverage Ledger
Per the PRD Phase 1 mandate, every chapter of 2 Peter has been reviewed for load-bearing vocabulary and doctrine gaps. Chapters with substantial new-term yield are analyzed above; the following confirms explicit review of content not otherwise surfaced in §§1-5:
- Chapter 1 (vv. 1-21): Fully covered above — salutation titles (1:1-2), virtue chain (1:3-11), Peter’s approaching death (1:12-15, body/tent/departure — low risk, reviewed, no new gap beyond core glossary entries), and the core passage itself (1:16-21). No omissions.
- Chapter 2 (vv. 1-22): Fully covered above — false teachers’ introduction and description (2:1-3), the three OT judgment exempla of the angels, the flood, and Sodom/Gomorrah (2:4-10), the false teachers’ character and Balaam parallel (2:11-19), and the relapse warning (2:20-22, রিভিউড as a High-risk idiom already logged in the term registry: শেষ অবস্থা প্রথম অবস্থার চেয়ে খারাপ হয়েছে). No omissions.
- Chapter 3 (vv. 1-18): Fully covered above — scoffers and the reminder of apostolic/prophetic witness (3:1-4), the flood as a prior judgment paradigm and the coming judgment by fire (3:5-7), God’s patient timing (3:8-10), practical exhortation toward holy living and the new heavens/earth hope (3:11-14), Paul’s letters and the twisting of Scripture (3:15-16, directly reinforcing the core passage’s 1:20 warning), and the closing doxological exhortation to grow (3:17-18). No omissions.
No chapter of 2 Peter contributes zero new terms or doctrines; all three chapters carry load-bearing vocabulary requiring the escalated review tiers documented above.
This document extends, and must be read alongside, analysis/08_core_glossary.md and the 2 Peter extension of assets/bible_term_registry.json. It does not supersede any baseline Romans translation_memory.json entry; all [TM: reused] terms remain governed by the baseline exactly as recorded.