Linguistic Gap Analysis — Philippians (French)

Purpose and Method

This document identifies where French lacks a clean lexical equivalent for a Philippians theological concept, where French offers a term that is already “occupied” by a competing Catholic, Republican-secular, Stoic-philosophical, or postcolonial association, and where the choice between transliteration and paraphrase carries doctrinal weight. It extends — and must not contradict — the baseline Romans Language Package (translation_memory.json, bible_term_registry.json, doctrine_risk_registry.json). Every recommendation here is compatible with, and in most cases directly informs, the term entries already drafted in the companion Philippians glossary and registry documents.

Coverage is full-book: all four chapters of Philippians are surveyed, not only the core passage (Philippians 2:1–11), per the Phase 1 full-coverage mandate. The core passage receives the deepest treatment because it carries the highest doctrinal density (Critical-tier Christology packed into eleven verses), but every chapter is explicitly accounted for below.

---

1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

For each of the eight curriculum doctrines: the available French terms, their built-in weaknesses, and the recommended handling strategy.

1.1 The Incarnation and Self-Emptying of Christ (Kenosis) — Philippians 2:5–8

Available French term(s)	Weakness	Recommended strategy
forme (de Dieu)	Ordinary French “forme” = shape/outward appearance of an object; risks a docetic reading (“merely appeared divine”)	Render “forme de Dieu” but attach a mandatory teaching gloss “(nature et condition divines)” at every occurrence; never let it stand as a bare noun in doctrinal material
kénose (loanword, attested in French academic/Catholic theology, e.g. Hans Urs von Balthasar’s French reception)	Available as a noun for the doctrine’s name, but using it inside the translated Scripture text itself would insert an untranslated technical term the AI system prompt’s Latin/Greek-tag caution (baseline) warns against	Reserve “la kénose” for doctrine-label headers and teaching notes only; the Scripture text itself must use the verb phrase “s’est dépouillé lui-même”
s’est vidé lui-même	Implies ontological loss of divine nature/attributes — heterodox kenoticism	Forbidden substitution — must never appear
s’est dépouillé lui-même	Correct: voluntary divestment of privilege/status, not of nature	Adopted as the fixed rendering (matches established Segond/TOB tradition)
esclave / serviteur (μορφὴν δούλου)	“Esclave” carries unavoidable weight from France’s transatlantic slave trade and the 2001 Taubira memorial law; “serviteur” is safer but weakens the total-ownership sense of δοῦλος	Use “serviteur” in running text with a teaching gloss “(litt. esclave)”; never silently substitute a term that erases the servant/slave contrast with “forme de Dieu”
semblable aux hommes (ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων)	“Semblable” alone risks a docetic “resembled but was not” reading	Anchor explicitly to the baseline’s Critical incarnation doctrine: real, not apparent, humanity

Gap identified: French has no single native lexeme that simultaneously carries (a) essential nature, (b) voluntary choice, and (c) reversal-of-status the way the Greek μορφή/κένωσις pairing does in one hearing. This is a genuine structural gap, not merely a translation-choice problem — it requires the teaching apparatus (glosses, footnotes) to do work the base text cannot do alone.

1.2 Joy in Suffering and Imprisonment — Philippians 1:12–26; 2:17–18; 3:1; 4:4, 10–13

Available French term(s)	Weakness	Recommended strategy
joie / se réjouir	Contemporary secular French “joie” is heavily colonized by bien-être (wellness) and positive-psychology marketing register	Always co-locate with the imprisonment/suffering context (1:12–26) in teaching material so the term reads as Spirit-produced resilience, not a happiness technique
bonheur	Too circumstance-dependent (etymologically “good fortune/luck” — bon + heur)	Rejected as primary rendering
communion à ses souffrances (κοινωνία παθημάτων)	Collides with Catholic redemptive/meritorious-suffering piety (“offrir ses souffrances”)	Must be explicitly glossed as solidarity/identification with Christ, never as merit-contributing suffering
verser comme une libation (σπένδομαι, 2:17)	OT/pagan libation-offering background is unfamiliar to all French readers regardless of tradition	Requires explanatory gloss, not bare transliteration of a Greek cultic concept with no French folk-equivalent

Gap identified: French has no vocabulary that natively fuses “joy” and “suffering” without one term overriding the other (secular French tends to treat them as mutually exclusive states). The doctrine must be carried by co-textual anchoring rather than a single lexical item.

1.3 Unity and Humility in the Church — Philippians 1:27–2:5; 4:2–3

Available French term(s)	Weakness	Recommended strategy
humilité / s’humilier	Everyday French connotation leans toward weakness, self-deprecation, or Catholic ascetic/monastic virtue — nearly the opposite of Christ’s powerful, voluntary self-lowering	Anchor every occurrence explicitly to the Christ Hymn (2:6–8) as the interpretive key, not to generic modesty
avoir cette même pensée / cette disposition (φρονέω)	No single French word carries this durative “settled mental orientation” sense; options like “penser,” “avoir l’esprit,” or “l’attitude” are all thinner	Use a fixed multi-word phrase and apply it identically at both 2:2 and 2:5 to preserve Paul’s literary inclusio linking the unity command to the Christ Hymn — a structural, not just lexical, requirement
communion de l’Esprit (κοινωνία πνεύματος)	Bare “communion” defaults to the Eucharistic sense in ordinary French religious usage	Always qualify as “de l’Esprit” and keep distinct from “communion fraternelle” and “communion en vue de l’Évangile”

Gap identified: φρονέω has no lexical French match; this is resolved by phrase-level consistency rather than a single-word solution — flagged as a structural fidelity risk for Phase 2 QA, not merely a glossary entry.

1.4 Righteousness by Faith versus the Law — Philippians 3:2–9

Available French term(s)	Weakness	Recommended strategy
justice / loi / foi [Baseline]	Same Romans 3–4 forensic-vs-merit collision, restated in Philippians’ single sharpest verse (3:9) outside Romans	Reuse baseline renderings exactly; no new decision required, but flag 3:9 for the same Critical-tier theologian review the baseline mandates for Romans 4
ordures / fumier (σκύβαλα)	Segond’s “une perte” badly under-translates Paul’s deliberately crude, visceral rhetoric; but French formal theological register resists true vulgarity	Genuine register-calibration gap: neither the sanitized nor the maximally crude French option is fully adequate; “ordures / fumier” is the recommended balance — strong without being gratuitously coarse
connaissance (du Christ) (γνῶσις)	French rationalist philosophical tradition (Descartes onward) treats “connaissance” as primarily propositional/abstract	Must be anchored to relational, experiential knowing (of a person, not a fact) in every teaching note

Gap identified: No genuine lexical gap for the core doctrine (baseline terms transfer cleanly); the gap is register-calibration for σκύβαλα, where French formal religious prose has no word matching the Greek’s shock value.

1.5 Contentment in All Circumstances — Philippians 4:10–13

Available French term(s)	Weakness	Recommended strategy
content / satisfait (αὐτάρκεια)	Low ambiguity as a plain adjective, but the doctrinal risk is that educated French readers carry αὐτάρκεια’s Stoic technical sense (self-sufficiency, taught in the standard lycée philosophy curriculum via Épictète, Sénèque, Marc Aurèle) and will default to a self-mastery reading	Every occurrence must explicitly contrast Pauline Christ-dependent sufficiency with Stoic self-sufficiency; never allow “autarcie/autosuffisance” (the Stoic loanwords) to stand unqualified
celui qui me fortifie (ἐνδυναμοῦντι)	Widely decontextualized in French Christian and secular motivational culture as a stand-alone empowerment slogan	Teaching material must keep 4:11–13 as one indivisible unit; never present v.13 alone

Gap identified: This is a “false friend” risk rather than a missing-vocabulary gap — French has the vocabulary (autarcie, autosuffisance) but it is already filled with a rival, well-known philosophical meaning that actively competes with Paul’s repurposed sense. This is functionally a crowded-neighborhood problem (see §2) as much as a gap.

1.6 Citizenship in Heaven — Philippians 1:27; 3:20–21

Available French term(s)	Weakness	Recommended strategy
citoyen / cité	”Citoyen” is one of the most loaded words in the French language: 1789 Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen, the Republican civic-religion of laïcité, and modern political discourse	Risk cuts both directions: literal translation may import Republican secular civic concepts foreign to Paul, while Segond’s fully de-metaphorized “conduisez-vous d’une manière digne” (1:27) erases the metaphor entirely, severing it from 3:20’s “πολίτευμα”
Sauveur (σωτήρ)	Low risk; titular form of baseline “salut”	Adopt directly; no new gap

Gap identified: This is the single highest French-culture-specific collision in the letter — not a missing-vocabulary gap but a too-full neighborhood gap (see §2.5 below).

1.7 Partnership in the Gospel — Philippians 1:5, 7; 2:25–30; 4:10–19

Available French term(s)	Weakness	Recommended strategy
communion en vue de l’Évangile / association pour l’Évangile (κοινωνία εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον)	Bare “communion” collides with the Eucharist; “partenariat” collides with commercial/business register	Adopt the compound phrase; never substitute bare “communion” or “partenariat” as the primary term
service / serviteur (λειτουργία/λειτουργός)	French “liturgie/liturgue” denotes the formal Catholic/Orthodox Mass rite	Reject the transliteration-adjacent “liturgie” entirely for this sense; use “service”
parfum de bonne odeur, sacrifice agréable (ὀσμὴ εὐωδίας κτλ., 4:18)	Collides with live Catholic Eucharistic-sacrifice theology (Mass as re-presented sacrifice)	Keep explicitly metaphorical/financial-gift framing in teaching notes
votre envoyé / votre messager (ἀπόστολον, 2:25, non-technical)	Using baseline “apôtre” here would wrongly elevate Epaphroditus to Paul’s foundational office	Disambiguate; never reuse “apôtre” for this occurrence

Gap identified: No missing vocabulary; three separate crowded-neighborhood collisions (Eucharist, commerce, Mass-sacrifice) cluster around this single doctrine and must each be fenced separately.

1.8 Pressing on toward the Goal in Christ — Philippians 3:12–14

Available French term(s)	Weakness	Recommended strategy
je cours vers / je poursuis / je tends vers (διώκω/ἐπεκτείνομαι)	Low risk; the Greek stadium-footrace metaphor maps onto French athletic vocabulary with little adaptation needed	Keep consistent with “le prix / le but” (βραβεῖον/σκοπός) across the whole unit
je suis parvenu à la perfection (with negation) (τετελείωμαι)	Losing the negation risks a perfectionist misreading that intersects with holiness-movement and charismatic-renewal streams present in francophone contexts	Preserve the negation “non que je le sois déjà” with equal syntactic weight to the main clause, never as an afterthought clause that can be dropped in paraphrase
appel (κλῆσις, 3:14, “the upward call”)	Baseline term; risk of narrowing to “vocation” (clergy/religious-life sense)	Reuse baseline “appel” exactly; never substitute “vocation”

Gap identified: No missing vocabulary; primary risk is negation-preservation, a syntactic rather than lexical gap.

---

2. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods Requiring Fencing

Several French words are not absent but overcrowded — already carrying a strong, well-established competing sense that will be the reader’s default unless actively fenced off in teaching material. These are distinct from missing-vocabulary gaps and require disambiguating glosses rather than new coinages.

2.1 The “communion” cluster

One Greek root (κοινωνία) surfaces in Philippians in at least four distinct senses, all of which collapse onto French “communion” if unfenced:

• General interpersonal fellowship → communion fraternelle [Baseline]
• Concrete missional/financial partnership (1:5; 4:15) → communion en vue de l’Évangile
• Spirit-sourced unity (2:1) → communion de l’Esprit
• Solidarity in Christ’s sufferings (3:10) → communion à ses souffrances

Bare, unqualified “communion” in French religious speech defaults overwhelmingly to the Eucharist. Every one of these four senses must carry its qualifying phrase every time; none may appear as bare “communion” in doctrinal material. This is the single most pervasive fencing requirement in the letter, occurring in three of four chapters.

2.2 The “forme” / ontology cluster

“Forme de Dieu” and “forme de serviteur” (2:6–7) must be read as a deliberately mirrored pair signaling essential nature, not outward appearance. Ordinary French “forme” defaults to shape/appearance. Fencing requirement: mandatory teaching gloss at both occurrences, and never let one occurrence be glossed while the other is left bare, or the parallelism (and its docetic-guarding function) is lost.

2.3 The “confession” cluster

“Confesse (ouvertement)” for ἐξομολογήσηται (2:11) sits directly next to the French noun “la confession,” which in ordinary and Catholic usage overwhelmingly denotes the sacrament of penance (confession auriculaire). Fencing requirement: prefer the verb form with an explicit “ouvertement/publiquement” qualifier; avoid the bare noun form entirely in this context; keep rendering verbatim-consistent with the fixed Romans 10:9 confession formula.

2.4 The “gloire” / “vaine gloire” cluster

Philippians 2:3 introduces κενοδοξία (“vaine gloire,” empty/false glory) in the immediate vicinity of the letter’s several genuine δόξα (“gloire,” true divine glory) occurrences (1:11; 2:11; 3:19, 21). Because the French words share the same root, careless juxtaposition risks readers conflating the counterfeit vice with the divine attribute. Fencing requirement: teaching material must explicitly label κενοδοξία as the negated/counterfeit form and never let “gloire” stand unqualified in verses discussing rivalry or selfish ambition.

2.5 The “citoyen” / civic-Republican cluster

Already treated in §1.6 as the letter’s single highest-risk item. The fencing requirement here is unusually strong: both a theologian and a native-speaker reviewer must sign off on 1:27 and 3:20 together, because the risk runs in two opposite directions simultaneously (metaphor lost vs. metaphor over-politicized) rather than a single predictable drift direction as with most other terms.

2.6 The “esclave” / colonial-memory cluster

δοῦλος and μορφὴν δούλου (1:1; 2:7) sit in a French linguistic environment where “esclave” carries the specific, still-live weight of France’s transatlantic slave trade and the 2001 loi Taubira recognizing it as a crime against humanity. Unlike the biblical-era institution Paul assumes as background, the modern French reader’s primary association is the colonial slave trade. Fencing requirement: prefer “serviteur” in running text with a “(litt. esclave)” gloss rather than foregrounding “esclave,” while ensuring the total-ownership sense is not lost from the doctrine notes.

2.7 The “liturgie” / Mass-rite cluster

λειτουργία/λειτουργός (2:17, 30) must avoid “liturgie/liturgue,” which in French denotes the ordered rite of the Mass. Fencing requirement: “service/serviteur” only; flag any drafted segment where “liturgie” appears as an automatic error.

2.8 The “autarcie” / Stoic-philosophy cluster

Already treated in §1.5. Fencing requirement: never let “autosuffisant/autarcie” stand without an explicit Christ-dependence contrast; these are lycée-curriculum Stoic technical terms in French secondary education and will be read that way by default among educated readers.

2.9 The “sacrifice/liturgical offering” cluster

ὀσμὴ εὐωδίας κτλ. (4:18) must be kept explicitly metaphorical (a financial gift described in sacrificial language) rather than read as endorsing an ongoing literal sacrificial economy, which would collide with Catholic Eucharistic-sacrifice theology on one side and a Protestant once-for-all-sacrifice framing on the other — the same fault line the baseline documents for grace/works generally, here applied narrowly to a single financial-gift metaphor.

2.10 The “évêque” / episcopal-office cluster

ἐπίσκοπος (1:1) must never render as “évêque,” which denotes the later, hierarchical Catholic/Orthodox bishop’s office. Fencing requirement: “responsables/surveillants,” explicitly glossed as local, functional, first-century leadership, not an institutional rank.

---

3. Missing Vocabulary (Genuine Lexical Gaps)

Distinct from crowded neighborhoods, the following have no adequate single French word at all, requiring either a fixed multi-word phrase, a mandatory gloss, or a structural (phrase-level, not word-level) solution:

Greek concept	Why French has no direct equivalent	Resolution adopted
φρονέω (settled mental orientation, 2:2, 2:5)	French verbs for “think” (penser, croire, estimer) are either too propositional or too momentary; none capture a durative disposition of mind	Fixed phrase “avoir cette même pensée / cette disposition,” applied identically at both occurrences
ἁρπαγμός (2:6)	Even in Greek this word is contested (grasped-for vs. exploited-for-advantage); French has no single word spanning both senses, and a wrong choice has Critical doctrinal stakes	Descriptive phrase “chose à retenir jalousement / à exploiter à son avantage,” selected to protect the pre-existent-deity reading
ὑπάρχων (2:6, durative participle)	French past tenses (passé composé, imparfait) do not naturally signal a continuing prior state the way the Greek present participle does	Phrase-level solution: “étant/existant depuis toujours (en forme de Dieu),” with the durative sense carried by the adverbial addition, not the verb tense alone
σχῆμα (2:7, outward bearing distinct from μορφή)	French “aspect/apparence/comportement” all risk collapsing into the same word used for μορφή if not deliberately differentiated	Distinct phrase “quant à son aspect / à son comportement,” kept lexically separate from “forme”
σκύβαλα (3:8)	French formal religious register has no word matching the Greek’s visceral crudeness without becoming needlessly vulgar	”Ordures / fumier” as the closest available balance; genuine residual gap acknowledged, not fully closed
σπένδομαι (2:17)	The OT/Greco-Roman libation (drink-offering poured beside an altar sacrifice) has no living French cultural referent in any tradition	Descriptive phrase “verser comme une libation” with mandatory explanatory gloss
κενοδοξία (2:3)	No single French word for “empty/vain glory” that doesn’t require unpacking the compound	”Vaine gloire,” explicitly flagged as the negated form of “gloire” (see §2.4)

---

4. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions

Following the baseline’s caution against untranslated Latin/Greek theological tags unless immediately glossed, each candidate for transliteration in Philippians was evaluated:

Term	Transliterate?	Decision and rationale
kenosis / ἐκένωσεν	No (in Scripture text); Yes (in doctrine-label headers only)	“Kénose” is an attested French academic/theological loanword but inserting it into the translated text itself would violate the baseline’s plain-register instruction; use “s’est dépouillé lui-même” in the text, reserve “kénose” for headers/teaching notes
harpagmos / ἁρπαγμός	No	No established French transliteration exists; paraphrase required (see §3)
Abba	N/A for Philippians	Not present in this letter; baseline Romans 8:15 rendering unaffected
Amen	Yes, if present	Standard established form “Amen” per baseline; occurs implicitly in benedictory register (4:20, 23) — retain established form
skybala / σκύβαλα	No	A transliteration would be meaningless to French readers with no Greek background; paraphrase required
doulos / δοῦλος	No	Fully lexicalized as “esclave/serviteur”; transliteration would obscure rather than clarify meaning
autarkeia / αὐτάρκεια	No — but flag the existing French loanword “autarcie” as a false friend, not a transliteration option	Already-existing French derivative belongs to Stoic philosophical discourse; using it imports the Stoic sense Paul is subverting, so it is rejected outright rather than adopted as a transliteration
episkopos / ἐπίσκοπος	No	French “épiscope” is not in general use and “évêque” (the natural cognate path) carries the wrong institutional freight; functional paraphrase preferred
leitourgia / λειτουργία	No	”Liturgie” exists as a transliteration-adjacent cognate but is rejected precisely because it is too established in the wrong (Mass-rite) sense
politeuma / πολίτευμα	No	No transliteration tradition exists; the metaphor must be carried by native French civic vocabulary, carefully fenced (see §2.5)

General principle confirmed for this curriculum: Philippians contains no cases where transliteration is the safer choice over paraphrase or established French lexical equivalents — the letter’s vocabulary problems are uniformly either (a) crowded-neighborhood fencing problems or (b) genuine paraphrase-requiring gaps, not transliteration candidates. This differs from Romans, where “Abba” was retained as a transliteration; Philippians introduces no comparable case.

---

5. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities

Ranked by combined doctrinal severity and probability of reader misreading, drawing on both the crowded-neighborhood and missing-vocabulary findings above.

1. Citizenship metaphor (πολιτεύεσθε/πολίτευμα, 1:27; 3:20) — Critical. Two-directional risk (metaphor lost vs. metaphor over-politicized) unique among all Philippians terms; requires joint theologian + native-speaker review of 1:27 and 3:20 as a linked pair.
2. μορφὴ θεοῦ / harpagmos / ἴσα θεῷ / kenosis cluster (2:6–7) — Critical. The entire pre-existence-to-incarnation logic of the Christ Hymn depends on getting four interlocking terms right in sequence; a single weak link (e.g., “chose à saisir” for ἁρπαγμός) unravels the whole doctrine of eternal pre-existent deity.
3. δικαιοσύνη / righteousness-by-faith contrast (3:9) — Critical. Restates Romans’ sharpest single-verse forensic-vs-merit tension; same Trent-vs-Reformation flashpoint, concentrated into fewer words than in Romans, leaving less room for contextual disambiguation.
4. Confession of Lordship (2:11, ἐξομολογήσηται) vs. sacramental “confession” — High. Direct lexical collision with the Catholic sacrament of penance; must remain verbatim-consistent with the fixed Romans 10:9 formula.
5. κοινωνία’s four senses collapsing onto bare “communion” (throughout) — High. The most pervasive single fencing failure risk in the letter by sheer frequency of occurrence (1:5; 2:1; 3:10; 4:15).
6. αὐτάρκεια vs. French Stoic “autarcie” (4:11) — High. A “false friend” risk elevated by the fact that educated French readers have formal secondary-school exposure to the competing Stoic concept, making misreading more likely than mere unfamiliarity would predict.
7. δοῦλος / μορφὴν δούλου and France’s colonial-memory weight (1:1; 2:7) — High. Not a doctrinal-content risk per se, but a register/reception risk that could derail reader engagement with the Christ Hymn if handled insensitively.
8. κενοδοξία vs. δόξα root-sharing (2:3 vs. 1:11, 2:11, 3:19, 21) — Medium-High. Risk is conflation of a vice with a divine attribute due to shared French roots.
9. σκύβαλα register calibration (3:8) — Medium. Risk is under-translation (losing Paul’s rhetorical force) rather than doctrinal distortion, but affects reader impact on a passage central to the Righteousness-by-Faith doctrine.
10. φρονέω phrase-consistency across 2:2 and 2:5 — Medium. A structural/literary risk: inconsistent rendering severs the inclusio linking the unity exhortation to the Christ Hymn, weakening (without technically falsifying) the doctrine of Unity and Humility.
11. τετελείωμαι negation preservation (3:12) — Medium. Risk is a perfectionist misreading if the negating clause is trimmed in editing or paraphrase passes.
12. λειτουργία vs. “liturgie” (2:17, 30) — Medium. Predictable, easily caught by a simple forbidden-term validation check; lower ranked because it is mechanically preventable.
13. ἐπίσκοπος vs. “évêque” (1:1) — Medium. Similarly mechanically preventable via a forbidden-term check, but included because a lapse would carry real institutional-anachronism weight.
14. ἐνδυναμοῦντι decontextualized quotation (4:13) — Low-Medium. Risk is downstream devotional misuse rather than translation error per se; primarily a teaching-material sequencing concern (keep with vv.11–12).

---

6. Chapter-by-Chapter Coverage Confirmation

• Chapter 1 — reviewed. Contributes: δοῦλος/servant-slave self-designation, ἐπίσκοπος/διάκονος local-office terms, κοινωνία εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (gospel partnership), χαρά (joy amid imprisonment), πολιτεύεσθε (citizenship conduct), σωτηρία. Reuses baseline: Χριστός, Ἰησοῦς, εὐαγγέλιον, χάρις, εἰρήνη, εὐχαριστία, ἅγιοι/saints.
• Chapter 2 — reviewed in full depth as the core passage’s chapter (2:1–11) plus surrounding material (2:12–30): μορφὴ θεοῦ, ἁρπαγμός, ἴσα θεῷ, kenosis, μορφὴν δούλου, ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων, σχῆμα, ὑπήκοος, σταυρός, ὑπερύψωσεν, ἐξομολογήσηται, κοινωνία πνεύματος, κενοδοξία, φρονέω, κατεργάζεσθε (work out salvation), λειτουργία/λειτουργός, σπένδομαι, ἀπόστολον (non-technical, Epaphroditus).
• Chapter 3 — reviewed. Contributes: δικαιοσύνη/law/faith righteousness contrast, σκύβαλα, γνῶσις Χριστοῦ, κοινωνία παθημάτων, τετελείωμαι, διώκω/ἐπεκτείνομαι, κλῆσις (upward call), πολίτευμα, σωτήρ. Reuses baseline: Ἰσραήλ, δύναμις θεοῦ, ἀνάστασις, δόξα.
• Chapter 4 — reviewed. Contributes: αὐτάρκεια/αὐτάρκης, ἐνδυναμοῦντι, δόσις καὶ λῆψις (giving/receiving), ὀσμὴ εὐωδίας κτλ. (fragrant sacrifice metaphor), παρακαλέω (Euodia/Syntyche appeal). Reuses baseline: εὐχαριστία, εἰρήνη, ἅγιοι/saints, χάρις (closing benediction).

No chapter of Philippians was found to contribute zero new linguistic-gap material; all four chapters required dedicated analysis above.

---

7. Handoff Notes for Phase 2

1. All fencing requirements in §2 must be encoded as automated validation checks (forbidden bare-”communion,” forbidden “évêque,” forbidden “liturgie,” forbidden “s’est vidé lui-même,” forbidden “chose à saisir”) parallel to the baseline’s existing forbidden-substitution list.
2. Items ranked 1–3 in §5 require mandatory human theologian review of every occurrence, consistent with the baseline’s Critical-tier routing rule.
3. Item 1 (citizenship) additionally requires a native-speaker reviewer alongside the theologian — the only Philippians-specific term requiring dual-track review by baseline convention.
4. The φρονέω phrase-consistency requirement (item 10) should be implemented as a cross-reference consistency check (parallel to the baseline’s Romans 1:16–17 / 8:28 / 10:9–10 consistency rules), comparing the rendering at 2:2 against 2:5 within and across all translated documents.