06 Linguistic Gap Analysis — Jude (English/Greek → Bengali)

Scope and Method

This analysis covers the full text of Jude 1:1–25 (a single-chapter epistle; there is no additional chapter to review). It works from the six named curriculum doctrines and cross-references the terms already fixed in the companion 08_core_glossary.md and assets/bible_term_registry.json. Nothing here contradicts those artifacts; this document explains why those choices were necessary by identifying (a) doctrine-level vocabulary gaps, (b) semantic neighborhoods in Bengali that are already “crowded” by Hindu, Vaishnava-devotional, and Islamic-idiom vocabulary and therefore require deliberate fencing, (c) transliteration-vs-paraphrase decisions, and (d) a ranked list of the letter’s highest-risk ambiguities for Phase 2 translators and reviewers.

Risk tiers (Critical / High / Medium / Low) follow the baseline doctrine_risk_registry.json definitions and routing rules.

---

Part 1 — Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

1.1 Contending for the Faith Once Delivered

Element	Detail
Available Bengali terms	বিশ্বাস (personal trust — established), ধর্ম (religion/duty — forbidden by baseline), সংগ্রাম করা (struggle), লড়াই করা (fight), রক্ষা করা (defend/keep)
Weakness of each	বিশ্বাস alone defaults to the personal act of trusting, not “a body of doctrine held in common” — Jude 1:3’s τῇ πίστει is the object of defense, a deposit, not an act. ধর্ম would collapse “the faith” into “a religion” (identity-marker), exactly the confusion the baseline already forbids for righteousness/law. A weak verb like “believe firmly” or “support” loses ἐπαγωνίζομαι’s athletic-contest intensity.
Recommended strategy	Retain established বিশ্বাস but require a mandatory translator note fixing its referent as the objective apostolic deposit (see registry faith_the_faith). Render ἐπαγωνίζομαι with the intensive compound প্রাণপণে সংগ্রাম করা (“struggle with one’s whole life/strength”) rather than any softer verb, and pair ἅπαξ + παραδίδωμι as একবারের জন্য (চিরকালের জন্য) সমর্পিত/অর্পিত to lock in the deposit’s closedness and finality.
Doctrine risk	Critical (verb), High (faith-as-deposit sense, once-for-all, delivered)

1.2 Judgment on Ungodly False Teachers

Element	Detail
Available Bengali terms	বিচার (judgment/verdict), ভাগ্য/কর্মফল/নিয়তি (fate/karma-result — forbidden), ঈশ্বরহীন (godless), ভক্তিহীন (devotion-less), পাপ (sin)
Weakness of each	ভাগ্য/কর্মফল/নিয়তি impose an impersonal, self-generating karmic-accounting frame exactly where Jude insists on a personal divine legal verdict pronounced by the returning Lord (vv.4, 6, 14–15). A ভক্তি-rooted rendering of ἀσέβεια (“lacking bhakti-devotion”) would reframe the false teachers’ fault as a failure of devotional feeling toward a deity among many, rather than irreverence toward the one true God specifically.
Recommended strategy	বিচার used consistently for both κρίμα and κρίσις to preserve their shared domain. ঈশ্বরহীন / ঈশ্বরহীনতা used for ἀσεβής/ἀσέβεια — built directly on ঈশ্বর (the established, doctrinally-settled term for God) rather than on either ধর্ম or ভক্তি roots, so the fault is anchored to the person of God, not a religious-identity or devotional-feeling category.
Doctrine risk	High

1.3 Old Testament Warnings as Types (Israel, Angels, Sodom)

Element	Detail
Available Bengali terms	দৃষ্টান্ত (example/parable), সতর্কীকরণ (warning), নিদর্শন (sign), Proper names: কয়িন, বিলিয়ম, কোরহ, হনোক, আদম, মোশি, সদোম ও ঘমোরা
Weakness of each	দৃষ্টান্ত alone (Jude’s common Bengali Bible word for “parable/example”) does not by itself carry the typological, warning-for-us force of δεῖγμα (“a publicly displayed exhibit of coming judgment”). A bare “example” reading risks flattening Sodom, the wilderness generation, and the fallen angels into moralizing anecdotes rather than prophetic types whose judgment previews the false teachers’ own. Bengali readers largely lack independent narrative literacy for Korah’s rebellion or the fallen-angels tradition, unlike Cain or Sodom, which have wider cultural recognition through prior Bible exposure.

   -- (continued below in table form) --

Doctrine	Recommended strategy	Risk
OT Warnings as Types	Render δεῖγμα as দৃষ্টান্ত/সতর্কীকরণের নমুনা (“example/warning-specimen”) to keep the forward-pointing warning force explicit; supply supplementary teaching-note material (not translated Scripture text) giving minimal narrative background for Korah, Balaam, and the fallen-angels tradition, since these are the least culturally recoverable of the three type-sets. Keep all proper names in established Bengali Bible house-style form.	High

1.4 Mercy and Rescue of the Wavering

Element	Detail
Available Bengali terms	দয়া (mercy/compassion), কৃপা (general compassion — reserved by baseline for non-soteriological use), অনুগ্রহ (grace — reserved), দ্বিধাগ্রস্ত/সন্দিহান (wavering/doubting), ধর্মত্যাগী (apostate/religion-abandoner)
Weakness of each	কৃপা and অনুগ্রহ are already assigned elsewhere in the glossary (general compassion; unmerited saving favor, respectively); reusing either for ἔλεος would blur three distinct theological categories into one Bengali word. ধর্মত্যাগী (“one who has abandoned religion/dharma”) would recast the wavering believer of v.22 as someone who has left a religious community/identity — a communal defection framing that is actually the opposite of Jude’s pastoral point, which is to distinguish the genuinely wavering-but-recoverable from the decisively apostate.
Recommended strategy	দয়া reserved specifically for ἔλεος (mercy) across vv.2, 21, 22–23, kept distinct from both অনুগ্রহ and কৃপা. দ্বিধাগ্রস্ত/সন্দিহান used for διακρίνομαι to name inner uncertainty deserving compassionate rescue, explicitly not settled unbelief or communal apostasy — a distinction that must be preserved given real social pressure in both Hindu-majority and Muslim-majority settings for a doubting believer to fully revert to the majority community rather than be patiently restored.
Doctrine risk	High

1.5 Kept by God and Presented Blameless

Element	Detail
Available Bengali terms	রক্ষা করা (keep/protect/save), বাঁচানো (save from danger), নিষ্কলঙ্ক (blameless/spotless), নির্দোষ (not guilty — legal-acquittal sense), ভালো/মোটামুটি বিশ্বস্ত (fairly good/mostly faithful)
Weakness of each	নির্দোষ carries a narrower forensic “not-guilty” courtroom sense that under-delivers ἄμωμος’s LXX sacrificial background (an unblemished offering — total, positive moral/spiritual soundness, not merely the absence of a formal charge). Any rendering drifting toward “fairly good” or “mostly faithful” reintroduces a graded, merit-accumulation frame that both Hindu karma-accounting and Islamic weighed-deeds frameworks would find natural but that directly contradicts Jude’s point that this is God’s/Christ’s securing work, not the believer’s own moral score.
Recommended strategy	One consistent verb-root (রক্ষা) for the letter’s entire τηρέω/φυλάσσω “keeping” wordplay across vv.1, 6, 13, 21, 24 — deliberately sacrificing some translation variety in English commentary for doctrinal and rhetorical consistency in Bengali. নিষ্কলঙ্ক reserved exclusively for ἄμωμος (v.24) as the letter’s climactic term, never diluted to a partial/gradient sense.
Doctrine risk	Critical (blameless), High (kept/guard)

1.6 Doxology and God’s Preserving Power

Element	Detail
Available Bengali terms	মহিমা (glory — established), মহত্ত্ব (majesty), পরাক্রম (dominion/might), কর্তৃত্ব (authority), সামর্থ্য (capability — Romans baseline), শক্তি (power — forbidden), একমাত্র (only/exclusive)
Weakness of each	English “power,” “might,” “dominion,” and “authority” cluster tightly together, but Jude 1:25 deliberately stacks four distinct Greek nouns (δόξα, μεγαλωσύνη, κράτος, ἐξουσία) in one doxological formula. Collapsing any two of these into the same Bengali word (e.g., using মহিমা for both δόξα and μεγαλωσύνη, or সামর্থ্য for both κράτος and generic “power”) flattens the doxology’s rhetorical fourfold structure and its cumulative rhetorical weight. শক্তি is additionally disqualified for any of these four, given Bengal’s Shakta-Hindu goddess-power associations already flagged in the baseline for δύναμις.
Recommended strategy	Assign four lexically distinct Bengali nouns, one per Greek term: মহিমা (δόξα), মহত্ত্ব (μεγαλωσύνη), পরাক্রম (κράτος), কর্তৃত্ব (ἐξουσία) — none reused for another of the four, and none using the শক্তি root. একমাত্র retained at both v.4 (implicit μόνον δεσπότην) and v.25 (μόνῳ θεῷ) to reassert strict monotheistic exclusivity against both Hindu multi-deity assumption and Muslim-audience concern that Trinitarian language compromises monotheism.
Doctrine risk	High

---

Part 2 — Missing Vocabulary: Where Bengali Has No Single Native Word

Bengali, like most languages, has no one-word equivalent for several of Jude’s most doctrinally load-bearing terms. These require compound phrases, and Phase 2 translators must not “simplify” them back to a single word under space or fluency pressure.

Concept	Greek	Why no single Bengali word suffices	Required compound
Contend earnestly	ἐπαγωνίζομαι	Ordinary বিশ্বাস করা (“believe”) or রক্ষা করা (“defend”) each capture only half of the athletic-contest-intensity + defensive-struggle sense	প্রাণপণে সংগ্রাম করা
Once-for-all delivered	ἅπαξ + παραδίδωμι	No single Bengali verb combines “handed down as a fixed tradition” with “unrepeatable, closed, final”	একবারের জন্য (চিরকালের জন্য) সমর্পিত/অর্পিত
Own domain/position (fallen angels)	ἀρχή (contextual)	Bengali শুরু defaults to temporal “beginning”; there is no single word meaning specifically “a rank/domain of delegated authority one has abandoned”	নিজ পদ/কর্তৃত্ব
Unnatural flesh (Sodom)	σαρκὸς ἑτέρας	No single decorous Bengali noun for this idiom without either vulgarizing or vaguing the specific typological point	ভিন্ন প্রকৃতির মাংসের প্রতি কামনা
Soulish/unspiritual	ψυχικός	Bengali has no established negative counterpart to আত্মিক (Spirit-given); “psychological” (মনস্তাত্ত্বিক) misses the theological point entirely	অনাত্মিক (negation of established আত্মিক root)
Flatter (idiom)	θαυμάζοντες πρόσωπα	The Greek idiom itself (“admiring faces”) has no Bengali idiomatic parallel; a literal rendering would be opaque or comic	তোষামোদ করা (লাভের আশায়)
Snatching from the fire	ἁρπάζω + ἐκ πυρός	Bengali রক্ষা করা alone is too calm/generic for the urgency of a forceful, hands-on rescue	ছোঁ মেরে (আগুন থেকে) তুলে আনা
Blameless (LXX sacrificial background)	ἄμωμος	নির্দোষ (“not guilty”) and ভালো (“good”) each capture only part of “total, Christ-secured moral/spiritual soundness fit for presentation before God”	নিষ্কলঙ্ক retained as single term, but MUST be glossed in teaching material with its sacrificial background, since the compound sense is not self-evident from the word alone

Implication for Phase 2: every compound above must be treated as a fixed unit in translation memory (parallel to the baseline’s ধার্মিক বলে গণ্য হওয়া for “justification”). Segment-level back-translation review should flag any instance where a translator has shortened these compounds to a single word.

---

Part 3 — Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods Requiring Fencing

Several Bengali word-spaces are already densely occupied by Hindu devotional, Vaishnava-bhakti, or Islamic-idiom vocabulary. Jude’s content activates a number of these directly. Each needs explicit “fencing” — a deliberate choice of which word owns which sense, and which competing words are excluded.

3.1 The ধর্ম neighborhood (religion / duty / righteousness / law)

• Crowding: ধর্ম simultaneously means Hindu cosmic duty, “religion” as an institutional/communal identity marker (হিন্দু ধর্ম, খ্রীষ্টান ধর্ম, ইসলাম ধর্ম), and colloquially “the right thing to do.”
• Jude-specific activation: “the faith” (v.3, v.20), “ungodly” (vv.4, 15, 18), and implicitly the whole letter’s insistence that right standing is received and defended, not a communal/religious identity one is simply born into.
• Fence: ধর্ম is excluded from all of these renderings, consistent with the baseline’s prior exclusion for righteousness/law. বিশ্বাস (with mandatory note) owns “the faith”; ঈশ্বরহীন owns “ungodly.” No Jude term is permitted to use the ধর্ম root.

3.2 The ভক্তি neighborhood (devotion / bhakti)

• Crowding: ভক্তি and its derivatives are the primary Bengali Vaishnava vocabulary for devotional feeling toward a deity, strongly associated with Chaitanya Vaishnavism centered in this very linguistic region.
• Jude-specific activation: ἀσέβεια/ἀσεβής could tempt a translator toward a ভক্তিহীন (“devotion-less”) rendering.
• Fence: ঈশ্বরহীন (built on ঈশ্বর, “God,” not on the ভক্তি root) is mandated instead, keeping the fault anchored to irreverence toward the person of God rather than a deficit of devotional emotion.

3.3 The প্রেম / bhakti-rasa neighborhood (love)

• Crowding: প্রেম is the established Bengali Bible term for ἀγάπη but carries strong pre-existing Radha-Krishna prema-bhakti romantic-devotional connotations, especially salient given the region’s Chaitanya Vaishnava heritage.
• Jude-specific activation: vv.1, 2, 12 (love feasts, ἀγάπαι — a concrete institutional referent), 21 (God’s love), 23 (garment imagery, adjacent).
• Fence: প্রেম retained per established translation-tradition precedent (matching baseline handling of ঈশ্বর itself), but v.12’s concrete ἀγάπαι must be rendered প্রেম-ভোজ/সহভোজ (“love-feast/shared-meal”) with an explicit translator note distinguishing this institutional-meal sense from the abstract love-term elsewhere, so Bengali readers do not read “feasts of romantic devotion.”

3.4 The salvation-vocabulary neighborhood (মুক্তি / মোক্ষ / নাজাত)

• Crowding: মুক্তি/মোক্ষ carry Hindu liberation-from-rebirth associations; নাজাত carries Islamic submission-and-weighed-deeds associations.
• Jude-specific activation: v.3’s “common salvation,” v.23’s rescue imagery, v.25’s “God our Savior.”
• Fence: পরিত্রাণ (established) and its derivative পরিত্রাতা (Savior) are the only permitted forms; all three forbidden alternatives remain excluded per baseline, with the same force in Jude as in Romans.

3.5 The সাধু neighborhood (ascetic/saint)

• Crowding: সাধু/সাধুগণ evokes a Hindu or Jain wandering ascetic renunciate.
• Jude-specific activation: the implicit background of “those called” (v.1) and “the saints” concept underlying the letter’s audience, though Jude does not use the Greek ἅγιοι as a noun-title for the readers as directly as Romans does.
• Fence: consistent with baseline, পবিত্র লোক is the standing designation should the concept need explicit naming in teaching material; সাধু/সাধুগণ remain excluded.

3.6 The Christ-name/title neighborhood (ঈসা / মশীহ / আল্লাহ / ভগবান)

• Crowding: ঈসা (Qur’anic Jesus, denying deity/crucifixion/resurrection), মশীহ (shared Muslim transliteration lacking full Christian christological content), আল্লাহ and ভগবান (competing terms for “God” from Islamic and Hindu-devotional idiom respectively).
• Jude-specific activation: especially acute here because Jude repeatedly stacks divine titles onto Jesus in tight sequence (vv.4, 21, 25 — “God our Savior… through Jesus Christ our Lord”), and v.4 explicitly denies Christ’s δεσπότης/κύριος status is being respected by the false teachers — a live doctrinal point that collapses if a Muslim-idiom or Hindu-devotional term is substituted anywhere in the chain.
• Fence: যীশু, খ্রীষ্ট, প্রভু, ঈশ্বর retained exactly per baseline; no exceptions anywhere in Jude, including in any future outreach adaptation, without the extensive framing the baseline already restricts to Muslim-audience-specific materials this curriculum does not use.

3.7 The পাপ/অশুচি neighborhood (sin / ritual impurity)

• Crowding: অশুচি and its root carry Hindu ritual-purity/shuddhi resonance.
• Jude-specific activation: μιαίνω (v.8, “defile”) and the general moral-corruption vocabulary of vv.7–13.
• Fence: কলুষিত করে (moral defilement) is used instead of any অশুচি-rooted term, consistent with the baseline’s treatment of পাপ itself.

3.8 The ভাগ্য/নিয়তি/কর্মফল neighborhood (fate / karma)

• Crowding: these terms assume an impersonal, self-executing cosmic accounting system.
• Jude-specific activation: all judgment vocabulary (κρίμα/κρίσις vv.4,6,15; ἀπόλλυμι vv.5,11; αἰώνιος v.7).
• Fence: বিচার (personal divine verdict) and বিনষ্ট করা/হলো (personal-agency destruction) are used throughout; no karma/fate vocabulary is permitted anywhere in judgment contexts, matching the baseline’s providence/election precedent.

---

Part 4 — Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions

Item	Decision	Rationale
Proper names (Cain, Balaam, Korah, Enoch, Adam, Moses, James, Sodom/Gomorrah, Michael [implied])	Transliterate, in established Bengali Bible house-style forms	Low lexical risk; consistency with existing Bengali Bible tradition takes priority. The narrative behind each name (not the name itself) carries the doctrinal weight — addressed via teaching notes, not via the name’s rendering.
Amen	Transliterate: আমেন	Established liturgical convention; no viable native paraphrase exists or is wanted.
ἐπαγωνίζομαι, ἅπαξ, ψυχικός, σαρκὸς ἑτέρας, θαυμάζοντες πρόσωπα, ἁρπάζω ἐκ πυρός	Paraphrase (compound Bengali phrases)	No single Bengali lexeme carries the full semantic load; forcing a one-word transliteration or calque would either be unintelligible or theologically thin (see Part 2 above).
ἀρχή (own domain), δόξαι (concrete “glorious ones”)	Paraphrase with disambiguating gloss, never a bare cognate-sounding calque	Both terms have a far more common alternate sense in ordinary Bengali biblical usage (শুরু “beginning”; মহিমা “glory”) that would actively mislead if applied without the disambiguating phrase.
Bengali idiom θαυμάζοντες πρόσωπα (“admiring faces”)	Paraphrase by meaning, never literal calque	Per the baseline’s idiom-handling rule: literal translation of a source-language idiom is expressly disallowed when it would not communicate the intended meaning.
δεσπότης vs κύριος (doublet, v.4)	Two distinct Bengali words (অধিপতি / প্রভু), not transliteration of either	Preserves the rhetorical doublet’s intensifying force; a single Bengali word for both would erase the doublet Jude constructs deliberately.
Enoch citation (v.14–15)	Translate the quoted words themselves (not transliterate as an untranslatable foreign quotation) but flag with a mandatory canon-boundary teaching note	The quotation is presented by Jude as true prophetic content and must be rendered as intelligible Bengali text like the rest of Scripture; the canonical status issue is handled by paratextual note, not by leaving the citation untranslated or visually marked as “foreign.”

---

Part 5 — Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities in Jude

Ranked by combined (a) doctrinal stakes and (b) likelihood of translator/reader misconstrual absent intervention.

1. Jude 1:5 textual variant — “Jesus” vs. “the Lord” saved the people out of Egypt. Bears directly on pre-existence and deity of Christ; base-text selection is a Critical-risk decision that must be locked by the theologian reviewer before any segment translation, since the two readings produce materially different Bengali sentences, not just a wording variant.

2. Doxology grammar, Jude 1:24–25 — “God our Savior… through Jesus Christ our Lord.” How the ascription of divine titles is grammatically distributed between Father and Son in Bengali carries high Trinitarian stakes; a careless rendering could read as either two separate divine subjects (feeding Hindu multi-deity assumptions) or as denying the Son’s full share in the ascribed glory (feeding Muslim anti-Trinitarian assumptions).

3. πίστις semantic shift, vv.3 and 20 — “the faith” as objective doctrinal deposit vs. established বিশ্বাস’s default sense of personal trust. Without the mandatory translator note at both occurrences, Bengali readers from Hindu or Muslim backgrounds will most naturally read বিশ্বাস as personal belief/creedal assent, missing Jude’s point that a fixed, transmitted body of teaching is under attack.

4. Citation of non-canonical 1 Enoch as containing a true prophecy, vv.14–15. Real risk of implying an open, ongoing-revelation canon model — dangerous in a context where readers are also weighing rival claims of a later “final” revelation (Qur’an) or of ongoing prophetic utterance in folk-devotional practice. Mandatory canon-boundary teaching note required, not just a footnote.

5. δόξα’s dual sense — concrete “glorious ones” (v.8) vs. abstract “glory” (vv.24–25). Same Greek word, two Bengali-relevant senses (মহিমাময় সত্তা vs. মহিমা); a translator working quickly across the whole letter could easily default to the abstract sense throughout and produce a nonsensical “they slander glory” in v.8 rather than “they slander glorious beings.”

6. ἀρχή in v.6 (“own domain/position”) vs. its far more common NT sense “beginning.” A single careless word-choice (শুরু) here would assert the angels abandoned “the beginning” rather than “their proper rank of authority” — a theologically confusing and simply wrong statement about angelology.

7. Jude 1:22–23 two-group vs. three-group textual/structural variant. Directly determines the letter’s concrete pastoral instructions for the doctrine of Mercy and Rescue of the Wavering; different manuscript traditions yield different action-verb sequences (“have mercy… save… have mercy with fear” vs. a two-part structure), which must be resolved before segment-level translation to avoid producing pastorally contradictory instructions in Bengali teaching material.

8. σπιλάς (v.12) — “hidden reefs” vs. “stains/blemishes.” A genuine lexical ambiguity in the Greek itself; the two readings produce different governing metaphors (nautical danger vs. moral contamination) for the whole verse, and the “stain” reading additionally risks conflation with the distinct σπιλόω of v.23 without careful lexical separation.

9. τηρέω wordplay consistency across vv.1, 6, 13, 21 (plus φυλάσσω in v.24). Not an ambiguity of meaning but a high risk of inconsistent Bengali rendering by different translators/segments, which would silently destroy Jude’s deliberate irony that the very verb describing the angels’ failure (“did not keep”) also describes their punishment (“kept in chains”) and believers’ security (“kept for Christ,” commanded to “keep themselves,” and finally “guarded” by God). Requires a single enforced root (রক্ষা) across all instances, tracked centrally in translation memory.

10. ψυχικός (v.19) built against the established আত্মিক root. Risk that translators unfamiliar with the coined negation অনাত্মিক will substitute a psychological-register term (মনস্তাত্ত্বিক/মানসিক), erasing the pneumatological point that the false teachers lack the Holy Spirit’s indwelling altogether, not merely emotional stability.

11. δεσπότης/κύριος doublet (v.4) collapsing into a single Bengali honorific. Under time pressure a translator may render both with প্রভু, silently losing the letter’s specific charge that the false teachers deny Christ’s absolute ownership (δεσπότης = অধিপতি) in addition to his lordship (κύριος = প্রভু).

12. ἀγάπη/ἀγάπαι (abstract love, vv.1,2,21 vs. concrete “love feasts,” v.12). Risk of either flattening both to প্রেম (producing a nonsensical “feasts of love-the-abstract-quality”) or, in the other direction, of the concrete institutional sense in v.12 pulling the reader’s imagination toward the Vaishnava bhakti-devotional resonance already carried by প্রেম, particularly if presented without the required translator note distinguishing the two senses.

---

Part 6 — Summary Recommendations for Phase 2

1. Load 08_core_glossary.md and assets/bible_term_registry.json in full before any Jude segment translation; every fenced term and compound phrase identified above is already codified there and must be enforced exactly.
2. Treat the six compound phrases in Part 2 as atomic units in translation memory; flag any segment where a translator shortens them to a single word.
3. Route all twelve items in Part 5’s ranked ambiguity list to human theologian review before Phase 2 segment approval, regardless of whether the surrounding sentence otherwise scores as low-risk.
4. Any future outreach adaptation of Jude for Muslim-background or Hindu-background readers must re-run the fencing decisions in Part 3 explicitly; this document’s fences assume the mainstream Bengali Christian register defined in the Romans baseline and do not by themselves resolve outreach-register questions.
5. Full-book coverage confirmation: since Jude is a single chapter, this gap analysis, together with the companion semantic analysis and core glossary, constitutes complete coverage of Jude 1:1–25 with no verse left unanalyzed.