06 Linguistic Gap Analysis — Jude (English → Burmese)

0. Scope and Method

Jude is a short, densely doctrinal letter built on two structural pillars: (1) a positive charge to contend for the faith once delivered (v.3) and (2) a sustained polemic against ungodly false teachers, illustrated by a triad of Old Testament types (Israel, angels, Sodom) and a second triad (Cain, Balaam, Korah), and resolved by a pastoral turn toward mercy for the wavering and a doxological affirmation of God’s preserving power. This gap analysis works from the Core Glossary (08) and the Jude-specific additions to the Bible Term Registry, asking three questions for every load-bearing term:

1. Does Burmese already possess a term that carries the correct doctrinal weight (a gap if not)?
2. If a term exists, is it already occupied by a competing Buddhist, animist, or folk-astrological concept that must be fenced off rather than simply borrowed?
3. Should the source term be transliterated (preserving foreignness to block false associations) or paraphrased/compounded (building doctrinal precision through a Burmese compound)?

Findings below are organized as: (1) Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix, (2) Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods, (3) Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decision Log, (4) Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities.

---

1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

D1 — Contending for the Faith Once Delivered (Jude 1:3, 20)

Available Burmese Terms	Weaknesses	Recommended Strategy
ယုံကြည်ခြင်း (faith, baseline)	Naturally reads as subjective personal trust (as in Romans); Jude’s usage in v.3 and v.20 is predominantly objective — a fixed, delivered body of doctrine (“the faith”). Burmese has no single native word that marks this subjective/objective distinction the way Greek ἡ πίστις with the article does.	Retain ယုံကြည်ခြင်း as the base term but require a compound qualifier (“faith once delivered,” “most holy faith”) in every objective-sense occurrence, never left as bare ယုံကြည်ခြင်း, so learners do not default to the personal-trust reading Romans trained them toward.
အပြင်းအထန် တိုက်ခိုက်ကာကွယ်ရန် (contend, new)	No existing Burmese religious-register verb captures the athletic-contest intensity of ἐπαγωνίζομαι. Direct literal options skew toward physical combat (risk: militancy) or toward calm doctrinal debate (risk: losing urgency).	Compound rendering already selected in Core Glossary; must be paired with a translator note in every occurrence clarifying “vigorous defense,” not literal warfare, and not mere calm discussion.
ကျမ်းစာတော်မြတ် (Scripture) / ဘာသာတရား (religion, generic)	Burmese default vocabulary for “a body of religious teaching” (ဘာသာတရား) evokes an entire religious system/institution (comparable to “Buddhism,” “Christianity” as whole traditions), not a specific, bounded doctrinal deposit entrusted at one moment in history.	Avoid ဘာသာတရား for “the faith” in v.3/v.20; keep to the ယုံကြည်ခြင်း-based compound so the deposit remains tied to apostolic doctrine, not reified into “the Christian religion” as an institution comparable to Buddhism.

Gap identified: No Burmese term for a closed, historically fixed, once-for-all doctrinal deposit. Burmese religious vocabulary offers either an open, living tradition (folk practice, continually reinterpreted) or a formally closed canonical corpus (the Tipitaka, closed by councils). Jude’s “faith once delivered” is neither — it is a personal, apostolic, Christ-centered deposit, closed in time but living in relationship. This requires explicit teaching, not lexical solution alone.

D2 — Judgment on Ungodly False Teachers (Jude 1:4-19)

Available Burmese Terms	Weaknesses	Recommended Strategy
ဘုရားမဲ့သော (ungodly, new)	Literal “godless” register does not land as morally serious in a non-theistic soteriology where personal devotion to a creator God is not required for religious legitimacy.	Every occurrence requires a translator note: this names active rebellion against a specific, self-revealing, sovereign God who has rightful authority, not neutral absence of religious sentiment.
အပြစ်ဒဏ်စီရင်ချက် (condemnation/krima) and တရားစီရင်ခြင်း (judgment-process/krisis)	Burmese default framework for consequence is ကံ (karma): impersonal, self-executing, proportionate, and ultimately self-generated by the actor’s own deeds. Both krima and krisis name a personal Judge’s verdict/act, categorically different in agency.	Maintain the two-term distinction (krima = verdict, krisis = process) established in the term registry; require theologian review at every occurrence (already Critical); reinforce personal agency of the Judge in every teaching note.
ထာဝရ (eternal, applied to judgment)	Naraka (Buddhist hell) is finite and karma-proportional; a being is eventually reborn once negative karma is exhausted. Burmese hearers may default to reading “eternal” fire/darkness as simply “a very long naraka sentence.”	Mandatory translator note on every occurrence (vv.6, 7, 13) explicitly denying any future release — this is the single highest-stakes lexical gap in the letter because it touches eschatological finality with no true cosmological parallel available.
ကာမဂုက်လွန်ကျူးသော အကျင့်ပျက်မှု (licentiousness)	Burmese sin-vocabulary tends to be flat (အပြစ် covers everything); Jude’s point is specifically that grace itself is twisted into license, a subtler move than generic immorality.	Keep licentiousness lexically distinct from အပြစ် (sin) and paired explicitly with ကျေးဇူးတော် (grace) in v.4 so the perversion-of-grace logic is visible, not merely “they sinned.”
တစ်ဆူတည်းသော အုပ်စိုးရှင် (only Sovereign/despotēs) vs. သခင် (Lord/kyrios)	Both terms, if collapsed, read as simple repetition in Burmese, losing Jude’s rhetorical stacking of two distinct absolute titles in a single verse (v.4).	Enforce visible lexical distinction in every Phase 2 segment; flag any translation draft that renders both as သခင်.

Gap identified: Burmese lacks a native register for “godlessness” as culpable rebellion (as opposed to simple non-belief) and lacks any cosmological category for unending judicial punishment. Both require sustained catechetical scaffolding beyond what a single lexical choice can carry.

D3 — Old Testament Warnings as Types: Israel, Angels, Sodom (Jude 1:5-13)

Available Burmese Terms	Weaknesses	Recommended Strategy
ကောင်းကင်တမန် (angels)	Burmese hearers’ nearest cultural reference point for intermediary spiritual beings is the 37-nat pantheon — beings propitiated for protection/favor, morally ambiguous, not necessarily accountable to one supreme God.	Reinforce in every occurrence that angels are created, morally accountable, subordinate to God — not intermediary powers to be venerated or feared independently.
မာရ်နတ် (the devil)	Direct lexical overlap with “Mara,” the tempter of the Buddha’s enlightenment narrative — arguably the single most entrenched inherited collision in the whole Myanmar Bible corpus. Cannot be replaced without breaking corpus-wide continuity (already used throughout Myanmar Bible), but the risk is real: Burmese readers may unconsciously import Mara’s narrative role (a temporary obstacle already overcome, not a personal being under final judgment).	Retain မာရ်နတ် per corpus continuity (baseline hard constraint), but mandate a theologian-reviewed disambiguating note at v.9’s single occurrence — the letter’s only appearance of this term, making the note tractable to apply consistently.
သောဒုံနှင့်ဂေါမောရ (Sodom and Gomorrah)	Zero native narrative memory; Burmese audience (especially first-generation believers) has no inherited association at all, positive or negative.	Not a collision risk but a pure information gap — requires supplied Genesis 19 background note, not a lexical fix.
ပျက်စီးစေတော်မူသည် / ပျက်စီးသည် (destroyed/perished)	Adjacent to, but must be firmly distinguished from, the positive Buddhist telos of extinguishing craving (nirvana/neikban) — both involve a kind of “ending,” but one is punitive ruin, the other liberative cessation sought as the goal of practice.	Consistent contrastive framing already established at the baseline salvation entry; extend the same contrast explicitly to this term whenever it names divine punitive action (vv.5, 10, 11).
ဇာတိပကတိ (flesh, sinful sense) vs. လူ့ဇာတိ (baseline: Christ’s sinless incarnation)	High collision risk within the language package itself if translators default to a single all-purpose word for σάρξ. Confusing the two would make Christ’s sinless human nature and the false teachers’ corrupted bodily indulgence lexically identical.	Hard rule, already flagged in the Core Glossary and Term Registry: ဇာတိပကတိ exclusively for Jude’s negative sarx (vv.7, 8, 23); လူ့ဇာတိ never reused here. This is an internal-consistency risk, not an external cultural-collision risk, but equally serious.

Gap identified: No native narrative memory for any of the three OT type-examples (Israel’s wilderness judgment, fallen angels, Sodom); this is an information gap, not primarily a lexical one, but it compounds the lexical risks above because Burmese readers cannot lean on cultural pre-understanding the way, e.g., a Western reader might.

D4 — Mercy and Rescue of the Wavering (Jude 1:2, 21-23)

Available Burmese Terms	Weaknesses	Recommended Strategy
ကရုဏာတော် (mercy/eleos)	Highest-severity semantic collision in this curriculum. ကရုဏာ is one of the four Brahmavihara — a systematically cultivated, impartial, self-generated compassion extended equally to all beings regardless of relationship or merit, attained through meditative discipline. Biblical eleos is the opposite structurally: a personal, sovereign, particular disposition of God toward specific sinners, grounded in Christ’s finished work, received rather than cultivated.	Treat with the same explicit teaching-note discipline the baseline requires for grace vs. merit (ကျေးဇူးတော် vs. ကုသိုလ်). Every occurrence (vv.2, 21, 22, 23) — four uses in twenty-five verses, an unusually high density — requires reinforcement that mercy here is God’s initiative toward particular persons, not a meditative state a person trains into being.
ယုံမှားနေသူများ (wavering/doubting)	Risk of conflation with ငြင်းပယ်သော (deny, v.4) — collapsing honest doubt into willful apostasy would misdirect the letter’s pastoral turn (mercy for waverers) into another condemnation.	Keep lexically and tonally distinct from “deny”; ensure Phase 2 register shifts to warmth consistent with the AI requirements’ Romans 8/12 guidance, extended here to vv.22-23.
မီးထဲမှ ဆွဲနှုတ်၍ ကယ်တင်ခြင်း (snatch from the fire)	Vivid imagery risks flattening into generic “help/save” phrasing if translators reach for smoother, less forceful Burmese idiom.	Preserve the forceful “seize/snatch” verb; this is rescue performed by another, structurally parallel to the baseline’s grace/salvation-vs-self-effort distinction; do not soften to passive “be saved.”
ထာဝရအသက် (eternal life)	Adjacent to, and must be fenced from, the cessation-of-existence model of nirvana; “eternal life” could otherwise be misheard as merely “life extended for a very long time” rather than unending relational life with a personal God.	Reuse the already-established Myanmar Christian phrase without modification; reinforce relational/personal quality (not just duration) in teaching notes.

Gap identified: No Burmese term for mercy that is not already claimed by a systematically cultivated, self-generated, impersonal Buddhist virtue. This is the single most consequential “crowded neighborhood” the Jude curriculum introduces beyond the Romans baseline (which fenced grace/merit but did not need to address mercy/karuna directly at this density).

D5 — Kept by God and Presented Blameless (Jude 1:1, 6, 21, 24)

Available Burmese Terms	Weaknesses	Recommended Strategy
ထိန်းသိမ်းတော်မူသော (kept, τηρέω)	The letter’s structural wordplay (God keeps the saints, v.1; angels failed to keep their domain, v.6; believers keep themselves in God’s love, v.21; God keeps them from stumbling, v.24) requires one consistent Burmese root across positive and negative, divine and human-responsibility uses — a lexical-consistency demand more than a cultural-collision risk.	Enforce single root family across all four occurrences per the Term Registry; flag any Phase 2 draft that introduces a synonym for variety, since variety here destroys the author’s intended wordplay.
ကိုယ်ကိုယ်ကို…ထိန်းသိမ်းထားကြလော့ (keep yourselves, v.21)	Risk of collapsing into a self-effort register resembling precept-observance (သီလလိုက်နာခြင်း) cultivated toward merit, exactly the pattern the baseline already fences for “obedience of faith.”	Frame explicitly as response within, and enabled by, God’s prior/future keeping (vv.1, 24) — human responsibility nested inside divine sovereignty, never presented as independent self-discipline.
အပြစ်ကင်းစွာ (blameless, ἄμωμος)	Adjacent to a graded merit-purity scale (increasing purity through practice) rather than a single act of God’s crediting/presenting.	Reuse baseline’s imputed_righteousness pattern exactly (Critical risk); reinforce “presented” as God’s own act at the end (v.24), not a status accumulated by the believer.

Gap identified: No lexical gap per se — Burmese ထိန်းသိမ်း (keep/guard/preserve) is semantically adequate — but a consistency-discipline risk: Phase 2 translators must resist natural stylistic variation to preserve Jude’s deliberate keeping-motif across the whole letter.

D6 — Doxology and God’s Preserving Power (Jude 1:24-25)

Available Burmese Terms	Weaknesses	Recommended Strategy
ဘုန်းတော် (glory), ဘုန်းဂုဏ်ကြီးမြတ်ခြင်း (majesty), အုပ်စိုးအာဏာ (dominion), အခွင့်အာဏာ (power/authority)	Four near-synonymous abstract nouns stacked in one verse (v.25); risk of the translation reading as redundant poetic filler rather than four distinct total ascriptions of sovereignty.	Maintain four lexically distinct Burmese terms (already differentiated in the Term Registry); resist any Phase 2 impulse to simplify/merge for smoother Burmese style — theological weight depends on the fourfold stacking being visible.
ခေတ်ကာလအလုံးစုံ…အစဉ်အမြဲ (forever/all ages)	Collides with cyclical kalpa cosmology (repeating world-ages); a Burmese reader could hear this as one exalted being’s ascendancy within an endless repeating cycle rather than a single linear, unbroken eternity.	Pair with explicit “before all time, and now, and forever” framing from the source text; do not allow ellipsis that would obscure the linear (non-cyclical) claim.
ကယ်တင်ရှင် (Savior, σωτήρ)	Adjacent to (but must be fenced from) the Buddha-as-refuge (ကိုးကွယ်ရာ) figure — a wisdom-teacher whose teaching one relies on for self-liberation.	Keep the rescue-by-another sense central (built on baseline ကယ်တင်ခြင်း root); pair with “only God” (v.25) to preserve exclusive monotheism against syncretistic softening.
ခလုတ်တိုက်ခြင်းမရှိစေရန် ထိန်းသိမ်းစောင့်ရှောက်ခြင်း (kept from stumbling, v.24)	See D5 above — same keeping-motif consistency requirement, here at its climactic resolution.	Confirm this is the terminal member of the keeping-motif chain; Phase 2 QA should specifically check that vv.1, 6, 21, 24 all trace to the same root family.

Gap identified: No single gap; the challenge is cumulative density — four abstract sovereignty-nouns plus two Critical-risk terms (Savior, blameless via the keeping motif) compressed into two verses, demanding unusually careful Phase 2 segmentation and QA attention per verse rather than per document.

---

2. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods

2a. Missing Vocabulary (true lexical gaps — no adequate native term exists)

Concept	Nature of the Gap	Resolution Path
Faith once delivered (fixed, personal, apostolic doctrinal deposit)	Burmese offers either an open/living folk tradition or a closed monastic canon (Tipitaka); neither matches a personal, Christ-centered, closed-yet-relational deposit.	Compound phrase + mandatory teaching note (already in Core Glossary); no single-word solution exists or should be sought.
Unending (non-cyclical) judicial punishment	Naraka is finite and karma-proportional; Burmese cosmology has no category for a punishment with no future release.	ထာဝရ + mandatory translator note at every occurrence (vv.6, 7, 13); theologically load-bearing, cannot be resolved lexically alone.
Godlessness as culpable moral rebellion (vs. neutral non-theism)	Burmese ဘုရားမဲ့သော reads literally but does not carry inherent moral weight in a non-theistic religious culture.	Sustained catechesis; term itself is adequate literally but insufficient alone — pair every occurrence with explanatory framing.
Common/shared salvation across the whole community, non-graded (v.3)	Burmese lay Buddhist merit practice is inherently graded and comparative (monks > devoted laity > casual laity); “common” salvation with no such gradient is a genuinely novel claim.	Render ကယ်တင်ခြင်း (baseline) plus explicit qualifier “common/equally shared” (as already flagged in the Term Registry); avoid any phrasing implying tiers.
Personal spiritual beings under final individual judgment (angels, the devil) as opposed to impersonal nats or narrative antagonists	Burmese folk cosmology’s nat-spirits and Buddhist narrative’s Mara figure are not built around the idea of a personal moral agent facing a future, final, individual verdict.	ကောင်းကင်တမန် / မာရ်နတ် retained, but require explicit accountability-framing notes distinguishing biblical spiritual beings from folk/narrative counterparts.

2b. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods (existing terms occupied by competing frameworks — require active “fencing”)

Burmese Term	Competing Occupant	Fencing Strategy
ကရုဏာတော် (mercy)	Brahmavihara ကရုဏာ (cultivated, impartial, self-generated compassion toward all beings)	Explicit note at every occurrence (vv.2, 21, 22, 23): God’s mercy is personal, sovereign, particular, Christ-grounded — received, not meditatively cultivated. Highest-priority fencing task in this curriculum.
ဘုရားမဲ့သော (ungodly)	Neutral non-theistic religious identity (no requirement to revere a personal Creator for religious legitimacy)	Explicit note at every occurrence (vv.4, 15, 18): names active rebellion against a specific revealed Sovereign, not mere absence of devotion.
ထာဝရ (eternal, of judgment)	Naraka’s finite, karma-proportional hell-states	Explicit note at every occurrence (vv.6, 7, 13): denies any future release; this is the sharpest doctrinal collision in the letter after mercy/karuna.
မာရ်နတ် (the devil)	Mara, tempter of the Buddha at the moment of enlightenment	Single-occurrence (v.9) mandatory disambiguating note; corpus-wide continuity prevents relexicalization.
ဇာတိပကတိ (flesh, sinful) vs. လူ့ဇာတိ (Christ’s incarnation, baseline)	Risk is intra-corpus, not external-cultural: conflating the two collapses Christ’s sinlessness into the false teachers’ corruption	Hard lexical firewall; no shared root permitted between the two terms across Romans + Jude translation memory.
ကောင်းကင်တမန် (angels) / ဘုန်းတန်ခိုးရှင်များ (glorious ones)	37-nat spirit-pantheon, addressed with comparable honorific/propitiatory titles	Explicit note: created, accountable, subordinate beings — never objects of propitiation or independent veneration.
ကယ်တင်ရှင် (Savior)	Buddha as ကိုးကွယ်ရာ (refuge) — a teacher whose Dharma one relies upon for self-attained liberation	Keep rescue-by-another sense structurally central; pair with “only God” (v.25) for exclusivity.
မေတ္တာစားပွဲ (love feast)	ဆွမ်းကျွေးပွဲ (merit-generating almsgiving offered to monks, a superior-recipient transaction)	Fence as mutual, equal-status covenant fellowship, not a one-directional merit transaction toward a religiously elevated recipient.
သန့်ရှင်းသူများ (saints, baseline reused)	ရဟန္တာ (arahant) — a spiritually elite, self-enlightened ascetic	Reaffirm baseline fencing: every believer, not an ascetic elite; especially relevant since Jude’s “saints” (v.3) are the recipients of the deposit being defended.
ယုံကြည်ခြင်း (faith, in objective “the faith” sense)	Tipitaka (closed canonical corpus) and/or fluid oral folk-tradition	See Section 1, D1; requires compound qualification, not a competing single term.

---

3. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decision Log

Term	Decision	Rationale
Messiah/Christ (ခရစ်တော်)	Transliteration (baseline/established)	Preserves foreignness against Metteyya conflation; already fixed by Romans baseline and AI requirements transliteration standard.
Sodom and Gomorrah (သောဒုံနှင့်ဂေါမောရ)	Transliteration	No native concept to paraphrase toward; proper names require background teaching, not translation.
Cain / Balaam / Korah (ကာဣန / ဗာလမ်)	Transliteration	Proper names; requires supplied OT narrative background rather than lexical substitution.
Enoch (ဧနောက်)	Transliteration	Proper name; paired with mandatory canon-scope note given the extra-canonical source.
Archangel Michael (မိက္ခေလ)	Transliteration	Established pattern; no native equivalent risk.
The devil (မာရ်နတ်)	Transliteration-derived (retained per corpus continuity)	Deliberate exception: normally a term this collision-prone would be flagged for replacement, but breaking corpus-wide Myanmar Bible continuity carries a greater risk than the collision itself; mitigated by mandatory note rather than relexicalization.
Amen (အာမင်)	Transliteration	Established liturgical transliteration standard.
Only Sovereign / despotēs (တစ်ဆူတည်းသော အုပ်စိုးရှင်)	Paraphrase (compound)	No transliteration option; must be a Burmese compound distinct from သခင် (Lord) to preserve Jude’s double-title stacking.
Faith once delivered	Paraphrase (compound)	A transliterated Greek phrase would be meaningless to the audience; the doctrinal content requires a built Burmese compound, heavily supplemented by teaching notes rather than lexical shortcuts.
Ungodly (ἀσεβής)	Paraphrase (compound, literal “God-lacking”)	Transliteration is not viable for a common adjective; the literal compound is retained despite its weakness (Section 2b) because no stronger native alternative exists — the deficiency is managed through mandatory notes, not through invented neologism.
Eternal (of judgment)	Paraphrase (reuse of baseline ထာဝရ)	Consistency with Romans baseline outweighs the temptation to coin a new, more emphatic term; the collision is managed by mandatory translator notes rather than lexical innovation.
Snatch from the fire	Paraphrase (full vivid compound retained)	A shortened/generic “rescue” paraphrase would lose Jude’s urgency; full imagery preserved deliberately against the pull toward smoother Burmese idiom.
Mercy (ἔλεος)	Paraphrase (reuse of established ကရုဏာတော်)	No transliteration option for so basic a term; despite the severe Brahmavihara collision (Section 2b), the term is too entrenched in existing Myanmar Bible usage to replace — risk is managed entirely through mandatory teaching notes, following the baseline’s grace/merit precedent.
Savior (σωτήρ)	Paraphrase (agent-noun built on baseline ကယ်တင်)	Preserves lexical connection to the baseline salvation root rather than introducing an unrelated term or transliterating a Greek title unfamiliar to the audience.

General principle applied: proper names and letter-specific figures default to transliteration (low doctrinal elasticity, pure information gap); abstract theological concepts default to paraphrase/compounding, because Burmese theological register already strongly favors compound nouns for doctrinal precision (as established throughout the Romans baseline) and because transliterating an abstract Greek noun would produce an opaque loanword carrying no meaning to the target audience.

---

4. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities in Jude

Ranked by combined severity (doctrinal centrality × collision strength × frequency in the letter):

1. Mercy (ကရုဏာတော်, ἔλεος) vs. Brahmavihara karuna — vv.2, 21, 22, 23. Highest-frequency Critical-adjacent collision in the letter; a meditatively self-generated, impartial compassion could silently replace God’s sovereign, particular, Christ-grounded mercy in the reader’s mind without any signal that a substitution has occurred. Ranked #1 because the competing concept shares not just a semantic field but the identical Burmese lexical root, and appears four times in twenty-five verses.

2. Eternal judgment (ထာဝရ) vs. finite, karma-proportional naraka — vv.6, 7, 13. Directly threatens the doctrine of final, unending judgment; the Buddhist cosmological default (eventual release once negative karma is exhausted) is the most natural inference a Burmese reader could otherwise draw. Ranked #2 because it touches eschatological finality, a Critical-risk doctrine with no cultural analog at all.

3. Ungodly (ဘုရားမဲ့သော) losing moral force in a non-theistic culture — vv.4, 15, 18. Risk is not mistranslation but under-translation: the term is lexically correct but may fail to register as a serious indictment, weakening the letter’s entire polemical thrust against the false teachers.

4. Flesh, sinful sense (ဇာတိပကတိ) vs. flesh, incarnational sense (လူ့ဇာတိ) — vv.7, 8, 23. An internal-corpus risk: any Phase 2 drift toward a shared root would make Christ’s sinless human nature and the false teachers’ corrupted indulgence lexically identical, a serious Christological collision compounding a moral one.

5. The devil (မာရ်နတ်) vs. Mara of the enlightenment narrative — v.9. Single occurrence, but the collision is the most entrenched in the whole Myanmar Bible corpus and cannot be resolved by relexicalization; risk is silent narrative substitution (Mara as “already-overcome obstacle” rather than “personal being under final judgment”).

6. Faith once delivered — objective vs. subjective sense of ယုံကြည်ခြင်း — vv.3, 20. Learners trained by the Romans curriculum to read ယုံကြည်ခြင်း as personal trust may fail to register Jude’s shift to an objective, defended doctrinal deposit, weakening the letter’s central positive charge.

7. Common/shared salvation (v.3) read through a graded-merit lens. Burmese lay religious practice is structurally comparative (monk > devoted layperson > casual layperson); “common salvation” asserts a flatly non-graded status that has no practice-based analog to reinforce it.

8. Only Sovereign (δεσπότης) collapsing into Lord (κύριος) — v.4. A translation-consistency risk rather than a cultural-collision risk, but doctrinally consequential: losing the double-title stacking weakens the verse’s assertion of Christ’s total, unshared authority.

9. Keeping-motif consistency (τηρέω/φυλάσσω) across vv.1, 6, 21, 24. Not a cultural collision but a translation-discipline risk: stylistic variation across four occurrences would destroy Jude’s deliberate wordplay linking divine preservation, angelic failure, and human responsibility.

10. Savior (ကယ်တင်ရှင်) vs. Buddha-as-refuge (ကိုးကွယ်ရာ) — v.25. Lower frequency (single occurrence) than items above, but doctrinally Critical; risk is that the closing doxology’s exclusivist “only God our Savior” reads as one refuge-figure among several available refuges rather than the sole rescuer.

---

5. Summary Recommendations for Phase 2

1. Load this analysis alongside the Core Glossary (08) and the Jude additions to bible_term_registry.json before any segment translation begins; none of the findings above override baseline Romans renderings — all are additive.
2. Prioritize theologian review queues by the ranked ambiguity list above rather than by verse order; mercy (#1) and eternal judgment (#2) carry the highest silent-substitution risk and should receive first-pass attention.
3. Treat the keeping-motif (τηρέω/φυλάσσω) as a structural, whole-letter QA check, not a per-verse spot check — verify root consistency across vv.1, 6, 21, 24 as a single review pass.
4. Every occurrence of ကရုဏာတော် (mercy), ထာဝရ (eternal judgment), ဘုရားမဲ့သော (ungodly), and မာရ်နတ် (the devil) must carry its mandated translator note through to Phase 2 review; these are not one-time footnote obligations but recurring per-occurrence requirements.
5. Maintain the hard lexical firewall between ဇာတိပကတိ (Jude’s sinful flesh) and လူ့ဇာတိ (Romans’ incarnation term) as a non-negotiable translation memory rule.

End of Linguistic Gap Analysis — Jude.