Linguistic Gap Analysis
Linguistic Gap Analysis — Luke 1–24 (English → French)
0. Purpose and Method
This analysis identifies where French vocabulary is missing, crowded, or fenced-off by competing traditions for the eight curriculum doctrines anchored in Luke 4:16-21, and produces the strategic renderings that feed the Core Glossary (08) and, downstream, translation_memory.json / bible_term_registry.json updates. It extends — and nowhere contradicts — the Romans baseline Language Package: every baseline term rendering is reused exactly (see §1). All NEW judgments below concern vocabulary that is either absent from the Romans baseline or newly load-bearing because of Luke’s distinct emphases (the poor, table fellowship, the Spirit’s narrative activity, prayer, the journey to Jerusalem).
Coverage is full-book: §6 confirms chapter-by-chapter review across Luke 1–24, per the PRD’s full-book mandate. The core passage (4:16-21) is treated as the theological anchor, not the boundary of analysis.
1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix
For each of the eight curriculum doctrines: the available French terms (reused-baseline + Luke-new), the specific weakness/gap each carries in French, and the recommended handling strategy.
1.1 Jesus as Savior for All Nations and All People (Jew and Gentile, Rich and Poor)
| Available French terms | Weakness in French | Recommended strategy |
|---|---|---|
| Sauveur (σωτήρ) | Secular “un sauveur” (sports hero, film rescuer) flattens exclusivity/divinity | Always anchor with possessive/relational context (“notre Sauveur”, “le Sauveur envoyé par Dieu”); teaching note at first occurrence (1:47) |
| nations (ἔθνη, missional sense) vs païens (ἔθνη, neutral/political sense) | Same Greek word, but French splits into a dignified term and a pejorative one; picking wrong one directly damages the doctrine | Mandatory per-occurrence context check (see §3, ranked #2); “les nations” at 2:32, 24:47; “païens” reserved for neutral-political senses at 21:24, 22:25 |
| Samaritain | Lexically stable but carries none of the 1st-century ethnic-religious enmity for a French reader | Teaching note required at every occurrence (9:52-53; 10:33; 17:16); do not rely on the bare noun to carry the scandal |
| Fils de David / Fils de l’homme (crossing social boundaries: confessed by a blind beggar) | No inherent French weakness, but the doctrinal point (marginal person names Jesus correctly) is easily lost if rendered flatly | Preserve narrative markers of social status (“un aveugle”, “un mendiant”) adjacent to the title, not just the title itself |
| juste / innocent (δίκαιος, centurion’s confession, 23:47) | “Innocent” alone reads as merely legal-acquittal; loses righteousness resonance | Pair “juste” with “innocent” or gloss, per baseline righteousness convention |
Gap identified: French has no single term that carries “Savior of Jew AND Gentile, rich AND poor” as one compound idea — this must be built compositionally across “Sauveur,” “nations,” and the rich/poor pairs below; no shortcut exists.
1.2 The Holy Spirit’s Work in Salvation History
| Available French terms | Weakness | Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| Esprit Saint (reused, Critical) | None per se, but Luke uses at least two distinct idioms for the same Person | Keep “Esprit Saint” as the default; see next row for the OT-idiom variant |
| l’Esprit du Seigneur (Πνεῦμα Κυρίου, 4:18) | French readers with low OT literacy will not automatically equate this with “Esprit Saint” | Teaching note mandatory at 4:18 clarifying same divine Person under an OT idiom (quoting Isaiah 61:1) |
| couvrira de son ombre (ἐπισκιάζω, 1:35) | Reads as merely poetic/protective without the Exodus Shekinah-cloud background | Teaching note required; do not substitute a more “explanatory” verb that would lose the deliberate echo |
| puissance d’en haut (δύναμις, 24:49) | Risk of vague “power from above” without forward link to Pentecost | Retain literal phrase; footnote forward-reference to Acts 2 |
| il m’a oint (χρίω, 4:18) | Collides with “onction” (sacrament of Anointing of the Sick) if noun form used | Verb form only, mandatory; teaching note distinguishing messianic Spirit-anointing from the sacrament every occurrence |
Gap identified: No single French word covers Luke’s habit of naming the Spirit’s activity with both a technical term (“Esprit Saint”) and OT-idiom periphrases (“l’Esprit du Seigneur”, “la puissance d’en haut”, “il a été rempli de l’Esprit”). Strategy: treat these as a controlled family of expressions, each glossed back to “Esprit Saint” in teaching notes, rather than forcing one uniform French wording that would erase Luke’s own stylistic variety.
1.3 Good News to the Poor and Marginalized
| Available French terms | Weakness | Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| les pauvres (πτωχοί) | Stable, but modern French socio-economic “pauvres” can drift toward a purely material-poverty reading, losing the spiritual/social-status dimension (marginalization, honor-shame) Luke also intends | Teaching notes at 4:18; 6:20; 7:22; 14:13,21; 16:19-25; 18:22 must supply the honor-shame/social-exclusion dimension, not just economic need |
| les opprimés / “les brisés” (τεθραυσμένοι, 4:18) | Literal “shattered” is opaque in modern French without commentary | Use “les opprimés” in running text; reserve literal “brisés” for footnote/commentary |
| le retour à la vue (ἀνάβλεψις, 4:18; 18:35-43) | Purely medical reading possible, losing symbolic-sight resonance | Cross-reference 4:18 ↔ 18:35-43 explicitly in teaching material |
| publicain(s) / collecteur(s) d’impôts (τελώνης) | Traditional term unfamiliar to secular readers; modern gloss loses “ritually suspect collaborator” connotation | Pair both terms at first occurrence (5:27) |
| heureux (μακάριος, beatitudes 6:20-22) | Risk of flattening into shallow “happy,” losing eschatological-reversal paradox | Retain “heureux” but require adjacent teaching note explaining the now/not-yet reversal; do not substitute “béni” (reserved for εὐλογέω) |
| malheur à… (οὐαί, 6:24-26) | Could misread as an imprecatory curse rather than prophetic lament | Gloss as prophetic lament-warning, not judicial curse |
Gap identified: French lacks a single term bridging economic poverty and social marginalization the way πτωχοί/ἀσθενεῖς cluster does in Luke’s usage; the matrix above compensates through paired teaching notes rather than a lexical fix.
1.4 Repentance and Forgiveness of Sins
| Available French terms | Weakness | Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| repentance / se repentir (μετάνοια) | Competing Catholic term “pénitence” imports a sacramental-penitential system (acts of satisfaction) foreign to Luke’s sense | NEVER use “pénitence”; mandatory across all occurrences (3:3,8; 5:32; 13:3,5; 15:7,10; 24:47) |
| pardon des péchés (ἄφεσις ἁμαρτιῶν) vs libération (ἄφεσις, social sense) | Same Greek lexeme (ἄφεσις) splits into two French words with no shared root, obscuring Luke’s deliberate structural bracket (4:18 → 24:47) | Every occurrence of ἄφεσις flagged for sense-check (social-release vs. sin-forgiveness); teaching note explains the single-Greek-word bridge that French cannot reproduce lexically |
| baptême (βάπτισμα) | Live Catholic/Protestant mode-and-timing disputes could be imported anachronistically | Keep descriptive of the 1st-century act only; no prescriptive mode/timing claims in translation |
| justifié (δεδικαιωμένος, 18:14) | Risk of softening to “pardonné” | Must retain full forensic “justification” weight per baseline; Critical, mandatory theologian review |
Gap identified: The ἄφεσις dual-sense is the single clearest case in Luke where French has no unifying term for a unified Greek concept — this is a genuine lexical gap, not merely a risk of confusion, and must be managed by explicit dual-tracking rather than solved.
1.5 Prayer and Dependence on God
| Available French terms | Weakness | Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| prier / prière (προσεύχομαι) | Low ambiguity, but risk of reduction to ritual observance rather than relational dependence | Teaching notes throughout (3:21; 6:12; 9:18,28-29; 11:1-13; 22:32,40-46) must foreground dependence-on-God theology |
| que ton nom soit sanctifié (ἁγιασθήτω, 11:2) | None — this is liturgically fixed | Must match the universally known ecumenical “Notre Père” wording exactly; zero deviation permitted |
| angoisse / une sueur comme des gouttes de sang (22:44) | Risk of over-clinical phrasing losing the anguish’s spiritual-emotional force | Retain the plain, non-euphemized rendering |
| volonté (de Dieu) (τὸ θέλημα, 22:42) | Low risk; ensure the human-will/submission tension is not resolved away | Render plainly, preserve tension |
Gap identified: No gap; French vocabulary for prayer is well-supplied. Chief risk here is register drift toward ritual/formulaic reading, addressed through teaching notes rather than lexical choice.
1.6 The Kingdom of God Present and Future
| Available French terms | Weakness | Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| Royaume de Dieu (reused, High) | None lexically; risk is theological — collapsing the now/not-yet tension into either pure-present or pure-future | Every occurrence must preserve dual temporal horizon in teaching material |
| au milieu de vous (ἐντὸς ὑμῶν, 17:21) — vs. rejected “en vous” | Genuinely ambiguous Greek preposition; French must choose and the choice is doctrinally consequential | ”Au milieu de vous” (corporate-locative) preferred over “en vous” (individualist-mystical); flagged for theologian review, not resolved silently |
| mystères du Royaume (μυστήρια, 8:10) | French “mystères” carries strong Catholic sacramental/Rosary connotation | Teaching note distinguishing hidden-but-revealed kingdom truth from liturgical “mystères” |
| vie éternelle (ζωὴ αἰώνιος) | Risk of a purely Platonic/spiritualized-afterlife reading | Anchor to Luke’s bodily-resurrection and coming-kingdom hope, not disembodied afterlife |
| cette génération (ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη, 21:32) | Debated referent | Render literally; resolve only in commentary, never in translation |
Gap identified: No lexical gap; the risk is entirely interpretive (now/not-yet, ἐντὸς ὑμῶν) and is handled through disciplined literal rendering plus mandatory flagging, not paraphrase.
1.7 The Cost and Joy of Discipleship
| Available French terms | Weakness | Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| prendre sa croix chaque jour (9:23; 14:27) | Secular idiom “porter sa croix” (endure generic misfortune) risks flattening the voluntary, daily, Christ-specific self-denial | Retain full phrase “chaque jour… prendre sa croix” as a unit; never abbreviate to bare “sa croix” |
| suivre (ἀκολουθέω) | Could read as mere physical accompaniment | Contextual markers (leaving nets, family, possessions) must remain visible in surrounding text |
| joie (χαρά) | Risk of reduction to ordinary emotion, losing Luke’s thematic use (heaven’s joy over repentance, 15:7,10,32) | Flag as recurring theological motif in teaching notes, not isolated emotional vocabulary |
| Mamon (μαμωνᾷ, 16:9,11,13) | French Bible tradition inconsistent (transliteration vs. “les richesses”) | Transliterate + gloss (“Mamon, personnifiant les richesses”) to preserve personification |
Gap identified: No lexical gap; risk is idiom-collision (“porter sa croix”) diluting a theologically specific call into generic stoic endurance.
1.8 Jesus’ Compassion and Table Fellowship with Sinners
| Available French terms | Weakness | Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| être pris de compassion (σπλαγχνίζομαι) | Standard French “compassion” alone is too cerebral for the visceral Greek verb | Always pair with an embodied verb phrase (“être pris de compassion,” “eut pitié”), never bare noun “compassion” |
| pécheur(s) (ἁμαρτωλός) | Risk of reduction to a casual moral-failure label, losing scandal-and-grace tension | Preserve table-fellowship narrative details (Jesus “mange avec” them) adjacent to the term |
| publicain(s) / collecteur(s) d’impôts (τελώνης) | See §1.3 | Pair both terms at first occurrence |
| perdu / retrouvé (15:4-32) | Low risk, but must remain verbatim-identical across all three parables | Lock wording across sheep/coin/son parables |
| contrains-les d’entrer (ἀναγκάζω εἰσελθεῖν, 14:23) | Historically misused to justify coercive conversion | Mandatory teaching note: urgent invitation, not coercion |
Gap identified: No lexical gap; French “compassion” under-translates the visceral σπλαγχνίζομαι unless paired with an embodied verb — a register gap, not a vocabulary absence.
2. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods
2.1 Genuinely Missing Vocabulary (no adequate single French term exists)
| Concept | Why French lacks a clean equivalent | Resolution |
|---|---|---|
| ἄφεσις (dual sense: social release / sin-forgiveness) | No French root bridges “libérer” and “pardonner” | Dual-track: “libération” / “pardon des péchés,” flagged per occurrence, with explicit teaching note on the single-Greek-word structural bracket (4:18 → 24:47) |
| σπλαγχνίζομαι (visceral, gut-level compassion) | French “compassion” is more cerebral/detached than the Greek’s bodily idiom | Compound verb phrase “être pris de compassion,” never the bare noun |
| The unified πτωχοί (poor = economic + social + spiritual marginality) | French “pauvres” defaults to economic sense only | Teaching-note layering rather than a lexical substitute |
| ἐξουσία as personal, self-evident authority (distinct from δύναμις) | French “autorité” defaults to institutional/bureaucratic register | Contextual reinforcement (crowds’ astonishment) rather than a different noun |
| Hebraic “sons of the resurrection” idiom | French has no living idiom of this shape | Literal calque “fils de la résurrection,” glossed |
2.2 Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods (too many French options, each importing unwanted freight — require fencing)
| French word/phrase | Competing senses crowding it | Fence required |
|---|---|---|
| grâce | (a) baseline soteriological grace; (b) “pleine de grâce” Marian liturgical formula (1:28); (c) “année de grâce” Jubilee-era idiom (4:19); (d) secular “l’an de grâce [date]” calendar idiom | Three senses must never bleed into each other: reject “pleine de grâce” in favor of “favorisée par la grâce (de Dieu)” at 1:28; keep “année de grâce du Seigneur” narrowly tied to Jubilee-liberation at 4:19; flag secular-calendar drift risk explicitly in teaching notes |
| saints / sainteté | Corporate NT “all believers” sense vs. canonized-intercessor sense dominant in French Catholic piety | Gloss “tous les croyants” wherever the corporate sense is intended (per baseline convention; low direct frequency in Luke’s Gospel proper but relevant to related doctrine teaching) |
| communion | Eucharistic “la communion” (dominant first-read sense) vs. koinonia/shared-life sense | Qualify “communion fraternelle” per baseline; never leave bare |
| onction / oint | Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick (“l’extrême-onction”) vs. messianic Spirit-anointing (4:18) | Verb-only rendering “il m’a oint”; noun form “onction” forbidden for this doctrine |
| mystères | Rosary “mystères” (Catholic liturgical) vs. hidden-but-revealed kingdom truth (8:10) | Teaching note required distinguishing senses; do not substitute a different noun that would lose the “hidden/revealed” contrast Luke intends |
| vocation | Catholic priesthood/religious-life calling vs. general believer’s calling | ”Vocation” forbidden for general calling per baseline; use “appel” |
| élection | Everyday political/democratic election vs. God’s sovereign choice (6:13) | Retain “élection” but never leave uncontextualized; pair with sovereignty language |
| pénitence vs. repentance | Catholic sacramental-penitential system vs. Luke’s transformative reorientation (μετάνοια) | “Pénitence” forbidden; “repentance/se repentir” mandatory |
| paradis | Secular leisure/vacation connotation vs. immediate-presence-with-Christ claim (23:43) | Teaching note required; no lexical substitute exists that avoids this collision entirely, so commentary must do the fencing |
| autorité | Bureaucratic-institutional French default vs. Jesus’ personal, self-evident authority (4:32,36) | Contextual reinforcement in surrounding narrative, not a lexical fix |
| Église | Institutional Catholic Church (dominant French sense) vs. any NT community language | Note: term itself is largely absent from Luke’s Gospel proper (appears in Acts); where the underlying doctrine (church_as_gods_people) is taught from Luke material, avoid the bare noun and use descriptive “communauté/corps” language per baseline caution |
3. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions
| Term | Original | Decision | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abba | אַבָּא | Transliterate (“Abba, Père”) | Preserves Aramaic intimacy already fixed across Segond/TOB/Jérusalem (per Romans baseline); Luke does not use it directly but doctrine-adjacent teaching (Père/adoption) must stay consistent with baseline convention |
| Amen | ἀμήν | Transliterate (“Amen”) | Established liturgical form across all French traditions |
| Alléluia | ἀλληλουϊά | Transliterate (“Alléluia”) | Established liturgical form; low Lukan frequency but relevant to doctrine-adjacent hymnic material (1:46-55; 2:14) |
| Mamon | μαμωνᾷ | Transliterate + gloss (“Mamon,” glossed “les richesses”) | Preserves personification of wealth as rival master; bare paraphrase “les richesses” alone would lose the personal, idol-like framing (16:9,11,13) |
| Géhenne | γέεννα | Transliterate (“géhenne”) | No natural French paraphrase; OT valley-of-Hinnom background must be supplied by teaching note, not solved by wording choice |
| Hadès | Ἅδης | Paraphrase, not bare transliteration (“le séjour des morts,” glossed “Hadès”) | Bare transliteration risks importing Greek-mythological underworld associations; French Bible tradition favors the descriptive phrase (16:23) |
| Sabbat | σάββατον | Transliterate/calque (“le jour du Sabbat”) | Established, stable; capitalize per covenant-term convention |
| Pâque | πάσχα | Calque, established (“Pâque”) | Retains Passover-typology link to the Last Supper; no viable alternative |
| synagogue | συναγωγή | Cognate transliteration (“synagogue”) | Stable cognate; must be fenced against conflation with “Église” (see §2.2) |
| Messie / Christ | Χριστός / Μεσσίας | Reuse baseline “Messie”; “Christ” as proper-name/title per context | Already fixed in baseline; no new decision needed, confirmed for Luke’s frequent messianic-title usage |
| onction (noun) | χρίσμα-family | Reject transliteration/direct noun use; paraphrase only via verb (“il m’a oint”) | See §2.2 fence; noun form forbidden due to sacramental collision |
| Fils de l’homme | ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου | Literal calque, not paraphrase (“le Fils de l’homme”) | Any paraphrase (e.g. “cet homme,” “moi”) would erase the Daniel 7 apocalyptic-authority background; literal rendering preserved even though French readers need a teaching note to recover the allusion |
| entos hymōn | ἐντὸς ὑμῶν | Paraphrase decision required (not transliteration): “au milieu de vous” over “en vous” | Genuinely ambiguous preposition; the corporate-locative paraphrase best fits Luke’s immediate co-text (17:20) |
| kecharitōmenē | κεχαριτωμένη | Paraphrase, reject the fixed liturgical calque (“favorisée par la grâce,” not “pleine de grâce”) | The traditional Vulgate-derived calque imports later Marian dogma; a fresh paraphrase is required to stay within the Greek’s own scope |
| aphesis (social sense) | ἄφεσις | Paraphrase, dual-tracked (“libération” vs. “pardon des péchés”) | See §2.1; no single transliteration or calque could unify both senses |
4. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities in Luke
Ranked by combined severity (doctrinal weight × likelihood of mistranslation × frequency/visibility in the curriculum).
-
Institution Narrative — “mon corps / mon sang” (22:19-20). The single most denominationally fraught text in the whole curriculum; any interpretive coloring (sacramental-realist or bare-memorialist) imported into the translation itself, rather than left to teaching commentary, would misrepresent one confessional tradition to the other. Mandatory theologian review, every occurrence, no exceptions.
-
Nations vs. Païens — ἔθνη (2:32; 24:47 vs. 21:24; 22:25). Directly determines whether the curriculum’s central “Savior for All Nations and All People” doctrine reads as dignified universal inclusion or inherits French “païens“‘s pejorative connotation. Wrong choice at 2:32 or 24:47 would sabotage the doctrine at its two most programmatic texts.
-
“Favorisée par la grâce” vs. “pleine de grâce” (1:28). The single highest-visibility collision between this curriculum’s Protestant-leaning forensic-grace framework and the most widely memorized Catholic liturgical phrase in French (the Hail Mary). Any drift toward the traditional calque imports Marian doctrine beyond Luke’s own textual claim.
-
ἐντὸς ὑμῶν — “au milieu de vous” vs. “en vous” (17:21). A live, disputed exegetical choice with direct consequences for the “Kingdom Present and Future” doctrine (corporate/observable vs. individualist/mystical kingdom). The wrong choice reintroduces the very kingdom-spotting Jesus rejects in 17:20.
-
ἄφεσις dual sense — “libération” vs. “pardon des péchés” (4:18 → 24:47 structural bracket). A genuine lexical gap (§2.1) where French cannot preserve Luke’s single-word bridge between social liberation and sin-forgiveness; misidentifying which sense is active at any given occurrence weakens the doctrine of “Good News to the Poor” or “Repentance and Forgiveness” depending on the error’s direction.
-
“Il m’a oint” vs. any noun form (“onction”) — 4:18. Direct collision with the Catholic sacrament of Anointing of the Sick; a noun-form slip would be read as sacramental language in a messianic-manifesto text, confusing two entirely distinct doctrines.
-
Fils de l’homme (Son of Man) — consistency across ~25 occurrences. Not ambiguous in rendering (the calque is fixed), but high risk of comprehension failure: French readers with low Daniel 7 literacy will default to “just a human being,” inverting Luke’s christological intent. Risk lies in omitted teaching notes, not in the translation itself.
-
“Année de grâce du Seigneur” (4:19) vs. secular “l’an de grâce [date]” idiom. Risk that the core passage’s Jubilee-liberation announcement is subconsciously read by French readers as a calendar-dating convention, deflating the eschatological force of the Nazareth manifesto at the exact center of this curriculum’s anchor text.
-
“Justifié” (18:14) softened toward “pardonné.” Repeats the Romans baseline’s Critical justification risk inside a narrative (rather than didactic) text, where translators may feel freer to paraphrase for narrative flow — a specific new risk vector not present in Romans’ epistolary register.
-
Samaritain (9:52-53; 10:33; 17:16) without ethnic-enmity background. Without a teaching note, the entire rhetorical force of “who is my neighbor” collapses, since French readers cannot supply the 1st-century Jewish-Samaritan hostility unaided — directly undercutting the “Savior for All People” and “Compassion” doctrines that depend on this social scandal.
-
Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (12:10) — pastoral framing. Same risk class as the baseline’s assurance-of-salvation caution; French Catholic penitential culture’s scrupulosity risk could turn this verse into a source of unfounded anxiety over one’s standing before God if translated/taught without pastoral care.
-
“Autorité” (ἐξουσία) reading as bureaucratic-institutional rather than personal (4:32,36). Lower doctrinal stakes than items above, but pervasive throughout the Gospel’s exorcism and teaching scenes; cumulative flattening risk across many occurrences.
-
“Paradis” (23:43) trivialized by secular leisure connotation. Isolated to one verse but high pastoral visibility (used at deathbeds, funerals); risk of the text being heard as a vague comforting platitude rather than Christ’s specific promise of immediate presence.
5. Strategic Recommendations Summary
- Reuse every Romans-baseline rendering exactly; introduce no silent variants (per PRD hard rule).
- Where Luke reveals a genuine lexical gap (ἄφεσις, σπλαγχνίζομαι, πτωχοί’s compound sense), resolve through paired teaching notes, not through inventing new French coinages that would themselves need glossing.
- Where French is crowded with competing senses (grâce, saints, communion, onction, mystères, vocation, élection, pénitence), apply explicit fencing language at every occurrence rather than trusting context alone.
- Reserve transliteration for terms with no natural French lexical space (Mamon, géhenne) and calque/established liturgical forms for terms already fixed ecumenically (Pâque, Sabbat, Amen, Alléluia, “que ton nom soit sanctifié”).
- Flag all thirteen ranked ambiguities in §4 for the appropriate review tier (mandatory theologian review for items 1–6 and 9; native-speaker review with teaching-note requirement for items 7, 8, 10–13) when this analysis feeds
doctrine_risk_registry.jsonupdates in the next Phase 1 step.
6. Full-Book Coverage Confirmation (Luke 1–24)
Every chapter has been reviewed against the eight curriculum doctrines and the Romans baseline term set. Chapters contributing no new gap-analysis findings beyond what is already captured above are noted explicitly, not silently omitted.
| Chapter | Reviewed | New gap-analysis contribution |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | ✔ | Favored One (1:28), Overshadow (1:35), Most High, Mercy, Consolation, Abba/Père background, seed of David |
| 2 | ✔ | Nations vs. païens (2:32), Savior title (2:11), Glory, Consolation of Israel, custom/synagogue background groundwork |
| 3 | ✔ | Repentance vs. pénitence fence, Baptism, Wrath (“colère à venir”) |
| 4 | ✔ | Core passage: Spirit of the Lord, Anointed (verb-only), Acceptable Year of the Lord, Release/Liberty vs. Forgiveness dual-sense, Recovery of Sight, Oppressed/Crushed, Fulfilled, Authority, Devil/Tempt, Unclean Spirit |
| 5 | ✔ | Sinner, Tax Collector, Son of Man (first occurrence, 5:24), Leprosy |
| 6 | ✔ | Blessed (beatitude) vs. Blessed (invocation) fence, Woe, Election (choosing the Twelve), Apostle |
| 7 | ✔ | Compassion (σπλαγχνίζομαι, 7:13), Sinner/table fellowship (7:34,37,39), faith-formula groundwork (7:50) |
| 8 | ✔ | Word of God (sower parable), Mysteries of the Kingdom (8:10), faith-formula (8:48) |
| 9 | ✔ | Transfiguration, Beloved Son, Cost of Discipleship/Cross (9:23), Son of Man (suffering predictions), Kingdom mission (9:1-2,11,60,62) |
| 10 | ✔ | Neighbor, Samaritan (10:33), Compassion (10:33), Election/“good portion” (10:42), Mission (Seventy-two) |
| 11 | ✔ | Hallowed/Lord’s Prayer (11:2, liturgically fixed), Prayer teaching, Holy Spirit (11:13), Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit background (11:47-50 prophets) |
| 12 | ✔ | Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (12:10), Gehenna, Mammon groundwork, Son of Man (future coming) |
| 13 | ✔ | Repentance (13:3,5), Kingdom parables (13:18-29), Jerusalem lament (13:34) |
| 14 | ✔ | Cost of Discipleship (14:27), Compel to Come In (14:23), Kingdom banquet (14:15) |
| 15 | ✔ | Lost and Found refrain (locked wording across all three parables), Joy (heaven’s joy over repentance), Sinner/Tax Collector table fellowship |
| 16 | ✔ | Mammon (16:9,11,13), Hades (16:23), Law and Prophets formula (16:16,29,31) |
| 17 | ✔ | Samaritan (17:16, healed leper’s thanksgiving), Kingdom “in your midst” (17:21, ranked ambiguity #4), Repentance/forgiveness (17:3-4), faith-formula (17:19) |
| 18 | ✔ | Justified narrative (18:14, ranked ambiguity #9), Son of David (18:38-39), Eternal Life, faith-formula (18:42) |
| 19 | ✔ | Salvation “today”/Zacchaeus (19:9-10), Lost and Found echo (19:10), Blessed invocation (19:38), Kingdom mission (19:11) |
| 20 | ✔ | Son of David/Psalm 110 Lordship argument (20:41-44), Sons of the Resurrection (20:36), Render to Caesar, Law |
| 21 | ✔ | Redemption (21:28), This Generation (21:32), Israel/Jerusalem material, Kingdom of God (21:31) |
| 22 | ✔ | Passover, Body and Blood/Institution Narrative (22:19-20, ranked ambiguity #1), New Covenant (22:20), Anguish/Sweat like Blood (22:44), Prayer/dependence (22:32,40-46), Son of Man (22:22,48,69) |
| 23 | ✔ | Paradise (23:43, ranked ambiguity #13), Righteous/Innocent centurion confession (23:47), Forgiveness from the cross (23:34) |
| 24 | ✔ | Resurrection climax, Fulfilled (24:44), Eyes Opened (24:31), Flesh and Bones (24:39), Nations/Forgiveness capstone (24:47), Ascension (24:51), Power from on high (24:49) |
No chapter was found to contribute doctrinally load-bearing vocabulary outside the terms already catalogued in §§1–4 above; all 24 chapters are accounted for in this gap analysis.