Linguistic Gap Analysis
Linguistic Gap Analysis — James
Purpose and Scope
This document performs PRD Phase 1 Step 8 for the James curriculum: a systematic linguistic gap analysis identifying (a) where contemporary destination-language (English) vocabulary is missing a distinct term for a load-bearing biblical concept, forcing collapse or paraphrase; (b) where destination vocabulary is crowded — a single English word carries multiple, competing senses that must be actively “fenced” apart from one another; (c) explicit transliteration-vs-paraphrase decisions for terms without a stable, safe, one-word English equivalent; and (d) a ranked list of the letter’s highest-risk ambiguities for Phase 2 review routing.
As with the baseline Romans Language Package, this analysis is a special case: English is the source language for every other destination-language package in this pipeline, so no cross-language translation gap exists here. The “gap” analyzed throughout is the gap within contemporary English itself between James’s first-century meaning and the meaning a modern English-speaking reader will supply by default — from secularization, denominational contest, obsolescence, or (uniquely significant in James) genuine one-to-many Greek-to-English lexical mismatches that the single-language format of this package cannot paper over with a different destination word.
Full-book coverage confirmation: This analysis was built from the complete verse-by-verse and chapter-by-chapter review underlying 07_semantic_analysis.md and 08_core_glossary.md, spanning James 1–5 in full. Every chapter is represented in the vocabulary matrix or the gap/crowding inventory below; no chapter is silently omitted. James 2:14–26 (the core passage) anchors the analysis but does not bound it — trials (ch. 1), wisdom and the tongue (ch. 3), worldliness and conflict (ch. 4), and patience, prayer, and restoration (ch. 5) are all fully represented.
1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix
For each of the nine curriculum doctrines: the English vocabulary currently available, its structural weaknesses, and the recommended handling strategy for Phase 2 content generation.
| Doctrine | Available Destination-Language Terms | Weaknesses | Recommended Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Faith and Works (core passage) | faith, works, justified/justification, faith alone, dead (faith), credited/imputed, righteousness, friend of God, worked together with, perfected, save | English has exactly one word (“justified”) for two theologically distinct senses (Paul’s forensic declaration vs. James’s demonstrative vindication), and “works” sits atop a live, centuries-old Reformation-era denominational fault line. No available English term signals which sense is active without added context. | Mandatory harmonizing note on every occurrence of “justified/justification” in James 2, stating explicitly that James answers “what kind of faith is genuine,” not “how is a sinner initially declared righteous.” Never render “works” without at least a brief functional gloss (concrete acts of mercy, not law-keeping to earn standing). Retain “faith alone” verbatim — never soften or omit. |
| Trials and the Testing of Faith | trial, temptation, testing, endurance, perfect/mature, double-minded | Single Greek word peirasmos splits into two English words with opposite emotional valence (“trial” neutral/legal, “temptation” negative-moral), destroying Paul’s — here James’s — wordplay across 1:2–14. “Perfect” is a severe false friend for teleios. “Endurance” and “patience” (ch. 5) are distinct Greek words that English readers will conflate. | Explicitly name the wordplay loss on first use in ch. 1 (“the same Greek word behind both ‘trial’ and ‘temptation’ here”). Gloss “perfect” as mature/complete, not flawless, every time it appears (1:4, 1:17, 1:25, 3:2), with special care at 3:2 where the false-friend reading would directly contradict James’s own point two verses earlier. |
| Wisdom from Above | wisdom, jealousy/selfish ambition | ”Wisdom” alone, in contemporary secular self-help usage, is a generic acquired virtue with no necessary reference to God — the “from above” qualifier is easily dropped in casual paraphrase. “Ambition” alone is often praised in professional culture; the negative qualifier is essential. | Never allow “wisdom” to stand unqualified when translating 3:13–17; always retain the above/earthly-unspiritual-demonic contrast structure. Never drop “selfish/self-seeking” from “ambition.” |
| Favoritism and the Poor | favoritism, poor, rich, royal law, law of liberty, mercy | ”Favoritism” is well understood but readers default to personal/interpersonal scope, not James’s specific structural, socioeconomic target inside the gathered church. “Poor”/“rich” sit inside a live prosperity-gospel tension in contemporary American Christian culture. “Law of liberty” sounds self-contradictory to individualist ears. | State James’s specific socioeconomic-status scope explicitly at first use of “favoritism” (2:1). Name the prosperity-gospel tension directly rather than assume shared assumptions about wealth. Always pair “law” and “liberty/freedom” with an explanatory clause (rightly-kept law producing true freedom, not constraint opposed to freedom). |
| Taming the Tongue | tongue, teacher | ”Tongue” as speech is a healthy, productive English idiom (asset) but two risks recur: casual-register trivialization of a serious warning, and confusion with the unrelated NT phenomenon of “speaking in tongues.” | Explicitly disambiguate from glossolalia on first use in ch. 3. Maintain a serious register throughout (fire/poison/untamable-animal imagery) rather than softening to etiquette-level cautions. |
| Worldliness versus Friendship with God | the world / worldliness, grace, the devil, desire, friend of God, judge | ”Worldly” is nearly inverted in contemporary English — positive/sophisticated instead of negative/rival-allegiance. “Grace” is the baseline’s own Critical false friend (poise, grace period). “Desire” defaults positive in self-actualization culture. “The devil” is trivialized by cartoon and joking idiom. | Treat “the world/worldliness” as requiring the single strongest corrective gloss in the entire James package — flag every occurrence, not just first use. Reuse baseline “grace” clarification verbatim at 4:6. Explicitly mark James’s “desire” as disordered/sin-producing, not neutral self-expression. State plainly that “the devil” names a real, personal, defeatable adversary, not a metaphor or joke. |
| Prayer and Healing | prayer, elders, anointing with oil, save/heal | ”Prayer” carries a contemporary cynical-cliché headwind (“thoughts and prayers”). “Anointing with oil” sits on a live sacramental/symbolic/faith-expectation denominational split. “Save/heal” is the same English word used elsewhere in the letter for eschatological salvation — a genuine risk of sense-collapse within one document. | Name the “thoughts and prayers” cliché directly and contrast it with James’s confident, sincere prayer expectation. State this curriculum’s own reading of anointing (symbolic act accompanying prayer) while noting the sacramental and faith-expectation readings exist elsewhere. Never leave “save” at 5:15 without an explicit healing-sense flag distinguishing it from 2:14’s eschatological sense. |
| Patience and the Lord’s Return | patience, the Lord’s coming, oaths | English collapses two distinct Greek words (hypomonē, ch. 1; makrothymia, ch. 5) into one word, “patience,” obscuring active endurance-under-pressure vs. hopeful forbearing-waiting. “The Lord’s coming” competes with sensationalized pop-culture “end-times” media framing. | Distinguish “patience” (ch. 5, forbearing hope) from “endurance” (ch. 1, active perseverance under pressure) explicitly wherever both concepts appear in the same teaching unit. State the Lord’s return as a real, historical, personal expectation without either apologizing for it or feeding sensationalism. |
| Confession and Restoration | confess, turn back / restore, soul | ”Confess” defaults, in contemporary secular usage, to criminal-justice/true-crime admission-of-guilt framing, and sits on a Catholic-sacramental vs. Protestant-mutual denominational split. “Convert” (a natural but wrong gloss for epistrepsē) narrows to dramatic first-time conversion, obscuring restoration-of-a-wanderer. “Soul” is vague in secular/musical/self-help registers. | State this curriculum’s mutual/corporate reading of “confess your sins to one another” transparently while noting the sacramental reading exists elsewhere. Use “turn back” or “restore,” never “convert,” for 5:19–20. Distinguish “soul” here from its softer secular senses — this is the whole person’s eternal well-being, not vague inner life. |
2. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods
2A. Missing Vocabulary (destination language lacks a distinct term; forces splitting or paraphrase, with loss)
These are cases where English simply does not have a word that maps one-to-one onto the source concept, unlike most of the baseline Romans package where a single risky-but-available English word could at least be flagged and corrected. James’s vocabulary produces several genuine lexical gaps, not just false friends:
| Gap | Problem | Consequence if Unaddressed | Fencing Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| peirasmos (1:2–14) | One Greek word; English requires two (“trial” / “temptation”) with opposite emotional charge | Readers cannot see that testing-that-produces-joy (1:2) and temptation-to-sin (1:14) are linguistically the same phenomenon viewed from two angles; the letter’s opening wordplay vanishes | Name the split explicitly at first occurrence; treat “trial” and “temptation” as a matched pair throughout ch. 1, not two unrelated topics |
| hypomonē vs. makrothymia (1:3-4/5:11 vs. 5:7-8/5:10) | Two distinct Greek words; English defaults both to “patience” | The letter’s ch. 1 (endurance under active pressure) and ch. 5 (hopeful forbearing for a future event) themes blur into a single flattened idea of “being patient” | Reserve “endurance” for ch. 1/5:11 and “patience” for ch. 5:7-10; state the distinction explicitly in any unit that treats both chapters together |
| teleios (1:4, 1:17, 1:25, 3:2) | No single English word conveys “reached its intended completeness/maturity” without also strongly implying flawlessness | ”Perfect man” (3:2) can be heard as claiming achievable sinless flawlessness — the opposite of James’s own point two verses earlier (“we all stumble in many ways”) | Prefer “mature/complete” as the primary gloss; if “perfect” is retained for traditional-translation continuity, always pair it with the corrective gloss on every occurrence, not just first use |
| dokimion (1:3) | No contemporary non-industrial equivalent for the ancient metal-refining/testing process | The metaphor (impurity burned away by fire to prove and purify) is opaque to a non-agrarian, non-metallurgical modern reader without explanation | Supply a brief explanatory clause every time (“as fire tests and purifies metal”) rather than leaving “testing” to stand alone |
| prautēs (1:21, 3:13) | English “meek/gentle” carries almost no residue of “strength held under control”; the nearest available words default to weakness/timidity | ”Meekness” risks being heard as a virtue of being a pushover, nearly inverted from James’s sense of disciplined strength | Render as “gentleness” with an explicit “strength under control, not weakness” gloss on first use; avoid bare “meek” without this correction |
| philos theou (2:23) | English “friend” has no register for an ancient covenant-intimate, high-trust, loyalty-bound relationship distinct from casual acquaintance | ”Friend of God” risks sounding like a warm but low-stakes compliment rather than a weighty covenant title | Expand on first use (“a trusted, loyal, covenant intimate — not a casual acquaintance”) and tie explicitly to its structural opposite, “friendship with the world” (4:4) |
| thrēskeia (1:26-27) | No single word captures James’s unusually positive, active sense of “religion” as concrete deeds (caring for orphans/widows, moral purity) | Contemporary “I’m spiritual, not religious” framing pre-loads “religion” as empty/institutional, directly opposite to James’s usage | State directly that James is using “religion” against the grain of the popular spiritual-vs-religious dichotomy, defining it in wholly active, ethical terms |
2B. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods (destination word carries too many competing senses; needs active fencing)
These are cases where an available English word is not missing but overloaded — multiple genuinely distinct senses (sometimes within James itself, sometimes across the wider pipeline) compete for the same surface form, and readers will not automatically select the correct one.
| Word | Competing Senses in Play | Fencing Required |
|---|---|---|
| justified/justification | (1) Paul’s initial forensic declaration (Romans; baseline lock) vs. (2) James’s later demonstrative/public vindication (2:21, 24, 25) | Explicit disambiguation on every James 2 occurrence; never allow the two senses to appear to contradict without the harmonizing note |
| save/saved | (1) eschatological/final salvation (1:21, 2:14, 4:12, 5:20) vs. (2) physical healing from sickness (5:15) | Flag the active sense per occurrence; never let 5:15 imply a guarantee of physical healing from every prayer, nor let 2:14 be read as merely rescue from a bad situation |
| the world / worldly | (1) contemporary positive “sophisticated, cosmopolitan” sense vs. (2) James’s negative “rival moral-spiritual allegiance opposed to God” sense (1:27, 4:4) | Maximal correction — flag at every occurrence, not just first use; this is the single most severely inverted term in the James package |
| perfect | (1) flawless/error-free (dominant contemporary sense) vs. (2) mature/complete (James’s sense, 1:4, 1:17, 1:25, 3:2) | Corrective gloss every occurrence, with special emphasis at 3:2 |
| grace | (1) elegance/poise or legal “grace period” (baseline Critical false friend) vs. (2) unmerited divine favor (4:6) | Reuse baseline clarifying language verbatim; the humility-vs-pride context does not reduce the risk |
| religion | (1) institutional/empty (popular “spiritual not religious” framing) vs. (2) James’s positive, active, deeds-defined sense (1:26-27) | State the countercultural usage explicitly |
| meek/meekness | (1) weak/timid (dominant contemporary sense) vs. (2) disciplined strength under control (James’s sense) | Corrective gloss every occurrence |
| confess | (1) criminal-justice admission of guilt (dominant secular sense) vs. (2) sacramental priestly confession (Catholic tradition) vs. (3) mutual, restorative acknowledgment among believers (James’s sense, 5:16) | State the mutual/corporate reading transparently; foreground the restorative purpose, not only guilt-admission |
| peace | (1) psychological calm (baseline sense) vs. (2) genuine relational fruit of wisdom (3:17-18) vs. (3) hollow, ironic verbal blessing substituting for real help (2:16) | Make the irony of 2:16 explicit — the criticism targets empty religious talk, not the wish for calm feelings itself |
| tongue | (1) literal speech-organ/speech-as-such (James’s sense, 3:1-12) vs. (2) glossolalia/“speaking in tongues” (unrelated NT phenomenon, especially salient to charismatic/Pentecostal readers) | Explicit disambiguation from glossolalia on first use in ch. 3 |
| law | (1) civil/criminal legal system (dominant contemporary sense; partial asset per baseline) vs. (2) “law of liberty” paradox (James’s sense, 1:25, 2:12) | Pair “law” and “liberty” with an explanatory clause every time they co-occur |
| desire | (1) positive authentic self-expression (contemporary wellness-culture sense) vs. (2) disordered, sin-producing craving (James’s sense, 1:14-15, 4:1-2) | Explicit negative-framing correction; never let “desire” stand as morally neutral in these passages |
| called | (1) effectual calling to salvation (baseline Romans sense) vs. (2) bestowed honorary title (“was called a friend of God,” 2:23; “the honorable name by which you were called,” 2:7) | Note the distinct, bestowed-title sense explicitly so readers do not import the Romans 8:28-30 effectual-calling frame here |
| poor / rich | (1) prosperity-gospel “wealth as divine favor” framing (live in contemporary American Christian subculture) vs. (2) James’s consistently critical stance toward the rich and exalted stance toward the poor | Name the tension directly; do not silently assume reader agreement with James’s assumptions about wealth |
3. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions
Because source and destination language are identical (English), “transliteration” in this package does not mean rendering a foreign phoneme string — it means retaining the traditional, theologically-loaded English term itself (even where rare, archaic, or risky) rather than replacing it with a plain-English descriptive paraphrase. Both strategies carry trade-offs; each decision below states which was chosen and why, following the same logic the baseline applied to terms like “seed of David” (retain-with-gloss) versus “messengers” (paraphrase away from “angels”).
| Term | Decision | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| works (ἔργα) | Retain (“works”) | Central to the letter’s argument and to the Reformation-era denominational debate readers need visibility into; paraphrasing away as “good deeds” alone would erase the very controversy this curriculum must name. Mandatory harmonizing gloss required every occurrence. |
| justified/justification | Retain (per baseline lock) | Locked rendering across the whole pipeline; changing it in James alone would break cross-document consistency with the Romans package and obscure the deliberate wordplay between the two letters’ usage. Mandatory sense-disambiguation gloss every occurrence. |
| faith alone | Retain verbatim, unaltered | The only NT occurrence of this exact phrase; softening, retitling, or silently omitting it would suppress the very tension the curriculum is obligated to surface. Non-negotiable. |
| imputed / credited righteousness | Retain (“credited,” with “imputed” as the technical cross-reference term) | Preserves the identical-verb, identical-citation link to Romans 4:3 required for cross-curriculum harmonization; a paraphrase-only rendering would sever this necessary connection. |
| ἀγγέλους (2:25) | Paraphrase (“messengers” / “spies,” not “angels”) | Contemporary English “angel” has specialized almost exclusively to heavenly beings; several established modern English Bible translations (NLT, NIV) already paraphrase this as “spies” for exactly this reason. Retaining “angels” here would introduce a supernatural element absent from the source narrative (Joshua 2). This curriculum follows the paraphrase convention. |
| spirit/breath (πνεῦμα, 2:26) | Paraphrase (“life-breath,” lowercase, explicitly not “Spirit”) | Retaining capitalized “Spirit” would wrongly import the baseline’s Critical-risk Holy Spirit doctrine into an ordinary corpse-and-breath illustration; paraphrase is required to prevent this collision. |
| friend of God (φίλος θεοῦ) | Retain the phrase, with mandatory expansion gloss | The traditional phrase is worth keeping for its direct structural contrast with “friendship with the world” (4:4), but cannot stand alone without the covenant-intimate expansion gloss given the word’s contemporary dilution. |
| teleios (perfect/mature) | Prefer paraphrase (“mature/complete”) as primary rendering; retain “perfect” only with corrective gloss where traditional-translation continuity is desired | The false-friend risk of bare “perfect” is severe enough (directly contradicting James’s own adjacent statement at 3:2) that paraphrase should be the default, not the exception, unlike lower-risk traditional retentions elsewhere in this pipeline. |
| royal law / law of liberty | Retain the paradoxical phrase, always paired with an explanatory clause | The phrase’s rhetorical force (law that liberates) is doctrinally important and should not be paraphrased into something blander like “God’s good rules”; but it cannot be left to stand alone given its apparent self-contradiction to individualist modern ears. |
| the world / worldliness | Retain (“world/worldly”) | Too deeply embedded in wider Christian idiom and cross-reference network (1 John 2:15-17, John 15:18-19) to replace with a paraphrase; the correct strategy is not lexical substitution but the strongest available corrective gloss, repeated at every occurrence rather than only the first. |
| anointing with oil | Retain the literal phrase | This is a concrete described action, not an abstract term needing paraphrase; the denominational range of interpretation (sacramental/symbolic/faith-expectation) is handled through a transparency statement, not through altering the description of the act itself. |
| confess | Retain (“confess”) | Widely understood English word; paraphrasing into “openly acknowledge” alone would lose the direct link to the wider biblical confession vocabulary (1 John 1:9) that readers benefit from recognizing. Requires the restorative-purpose foregrounding described above, not a substitute word. |
| turn back / restore (ἐπιστρέψῃ) | Paraphrase (“turn back” / “restore,” not “convert”) | “Convert” is the natural-sounding gloss but is specifically wrong: it is narrowed in contemporary usage to a dramatic first-time change of religious allegiance, which is not James’s picture of restoring an already-professing wanderer. Paraphrase away from “convert” is required. |
| meekness | Prefer paraphrase (“gentleness,” with “strength under control” gloss) over bare “meek" | "Meek” alone carries too strong a weakness/timidity connotation in contemporary English to serve as a safe default rendering without the corrective clause attached every time. |
| religion (θρησκεία) | Retain (“religion”) | Retaining the word, rather than paraphrasing it away as “true spirituality” or similar, is the whole point: James’s positive, active usage is a deliberate correction of the popular “spiritual, not religious” dichotomy, and this only lands if the word itself is kept and re-defined, not avoided. |
4. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities
Ranked by combined severity of (a) confidence of misreading, (b) doctrinal weight, and (c) breadth of impact across the letter. Risk tiers align with doctrine_risk_registry.json conventions (Critical/High/Medium/Low); ranking within this list reflects severity ordering beyond the tier label alone, since several items share a Critical tier.
- “works” (ἔργα) — Critical. The letter’s single highest-stakes term; centuries of live English-speaking denominational dispute (Reformation sola fide vs. Catholic/Orthodox readings of James 2) sit directly on top of it. Every occurrence requires the harmonizing note; omission risks readers concluding James contradicts Paul.
- “justified/justification” in its James-specific demonstrative sense — Critical. English possesses only one common word for two genuinely distinct biblical senses (Paul’s forensic declaration vs. James’s public vindication); this is a false-friend risk internal to the Bible itself, not just against secular usage, making it uniquely dangerous.
- “faith alone” (ἐκ πίστεως μόνον) — Critical. The only NT occurrence of this exact phrase, directly negating the Reformation’s sola fide slogan in wording; any silent softening, harmonization, or avoidance is prohibited by design.
- “the world / worldliness” (κόσμος, φιλία τοῦ κόσμου) — High, but the single most severe inversion. Contemporary English “worldly” is positively coded (sophisticated, cosmopolitan); James’s sense is negative rival-allegiance. This exceeds even the baseline’s most severe documented inversions (“glory,” “power”) in degree of reversal.
- “save/saved” — Critical, dual-sense-within-one-letter risk. The same English word must carry both eschatological salvation (1:21, 2:14, 4:12, 5:20) and physical healing (5:15) within a single short document; conflation risks either trivializing salvation or over-promising guaranteed healing.
- “grace” (χάρις) at 4:6 — Critical (baseline reuse). Must trigger the full baseline false-friend clarification (elegance/poise, grace period) even though the immediate context (humility vs. pride) differs from Romans’s justification argument; easy to under-flag since it appears only once in James.
- “credited/imputed righteousness” (ἐλογίσθη) — Critical. Identical verb and citation to Romans 4:3; if not explicitly cross-referenced, the two curricula’s treatments of the same verse risk appearing to readers as independently-arrived-at or even conflicting interpretations.
- “perfect/mature” (τέλειος) — High, acute at 3:2. The false-friend reading (flawless) directly contradicts James’s own statement two verses earlier that “we all stumble in many ways” — an internal self-contradiction risk unique to this term’s placement.
- “favoritism” scope-narrowing — High. Readers default to personal/interpersonal favoritism; James’s specific target is structural, socioeconomic-status discrimination inside the gathered church, a materially different and more uncomfortable claim if softened.
- “royal law / law of liberty” — High. Sounds self-contradictory to individualist modern ears (law vs. liberty as near-opposites); risk of the whole phrase being dismissed as incoherent rather than engaged.
- “anointing with oil” — High, denominational. Sacramental (Catholic/Orthodox) vs. symbolic (Protestant) vs. faith-expectation (Pentecostal/charismatic) readings genuinely diverge; silent one-sidedness would misrepresent the range of English-speaking Christian practice.
- “confess” — High, denominational plus secular false friend. Simultaneously carries a sacramental-priestly denominational contest and a criminal-justice/true-crime secular default that emphasizes guilt-admission over James’s restorative purpose.
- “meekness” (πραΰτης) — High inversion. Near-total contemporary association with weakness/timidity, close to inverted from James’s controlled-strength sense.
- “demons” (δαιμόνια) — High. Pop-psychology (“fighting my demons”) and horror-genre entertainment both strip out real personal agency and moral accountability that James’s argument in 2:19 depends on.
- “religion” (θρησκεία) — High. Runs directly against the popular contemporary “spiritual, not religious” self-identification; James’s positive, active usage requires deliberate countercultural framing, not passive repetition.
- “poor”/“rich” — Medium, denominational. Live tension with prosperity-gospel strands of contemporary American Christianity; requires the tension to be named, not assumed resolved.
- “wisdom” — Medium. Generic secular self-help usage can quietly detach the concept from its “from above” divine source and its “earthly/demonic” negative counterpart.
- “tongue” — Medium, specific confusion risk. Distinct but real risk of conflation with glossolalia (“speaking in tongues”) for readers from charismatic/Pentecostal backgrounds.
- “prayer” — Medium, cultural cliché headwind. “Thoughts and prayers” cynicism is a genuine contemporary obstacle to James’s confident, sincere prayer expectation (5:13-18).
- “peace” at 2:16 — Medium, layered irony risk. Because baseline “peace” already risks being read as mere psychological calm, the added irony (a hollow verbal blessing substituting for real help) is at risk of a double misreading unless made explicit.
- “called” (2:7, 2:23) — Medium, sense-collision with baseline. Bestowed-title sense here is distinct from the baseline’s effectual-calling-to-salvation sense (Romans 8:28-30); low individual severity but real risk of unnoticed conflation for readers moving between the Romans and James packages.
- “the Lord’s coming” (παρουσία) — Medium. Contemporary skepticism and sensationalized “end-times” media framing both push against a sober, plain statement of a real, historical, personal future expectation.
5. Summary and Handoff
This gap analysis surfaces a structural difference from the baseline Romans package worth flagging explicitly for Phase 2: James generates more genuine lexical-gap risk (Section 2A) than Romans did, because James’s argument leans heavily on wordplay and paired/contrasted Greek terms (peirasmos’s dual sense; hypomonē vs. makrothymia; teleios’s completeness-not-flawlessness) that a single-language English package cannot resolve by substituting a different destination word — the same English word must do double or triple duty, and the fencing has to happen entirely through explanatory context rather than lexical choice. Phase 2 content generation should treat Section 2A gaps with the same mandatory-disambiguation discipline the baseline already requires for Critical false-friend terms, even though several of these gap items (e.g., dokimion, prautēs) are only Medium-High risk individually — the mechanism of the risk (no safe word exists at all, not merely a risky one) warrants equivalent procedural care.
See 07_semantic_analysis.md for the full verse-by-verse basis underlying every entry above.
See 08_core_glossary.md for the complete term-by-term glossary these gap categories are drawn from.
See assets/bible_term_registry.json for the formal per-term registry entries feeding Phase 2 enforcement.
This analysis extends, and does not contradict, the baseline Romans translation_memory.json, bible_term_registry.json, and doctrine_risk_registry.json.