Linguistic Gap Analysis: Galatians (English/Greek → Hungarian)

Purpose and Scope

This analysis maps where standard literary Hungarian has adequate, strained, or missing vocabulary for Galatians’ doctrinal content, and where existing Hungarian religious vocabulary is crowded by competing associations from the Catholic and Reformed traditions documented in the Romans baseline. It extends — and must never contradict — the baseline translation_memory.json and the curriculum-specific 08_core_glossary.md / bible_term_registry.json already produced for this letter. Findings here are organized for direct use by Phase 1 Steps 9–11 (doctrine analysis, requirements, review routing) and by the Phase 2 AI translation instruction set.

Galatians presents a distinct linguistic-gap profile from Romans: it is shorter, more polemical, and compresses several of its most theologically dense arguments (2:15-21; 3:1-14; 4:21-31; 5:1-6) into passages where a single Hungarian lexical choice carries outsized doctrinal weight. The letter’s central rhetorical move — arguing that no equivalent alternative gospel exists (1:6-9) — is itself a linguistic-gap problem: Hungarian’s ordinary word for “different” does not by default carry Paul’s ἕτερος/ἄλλος distinction.

---

Part 1 — Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

For each of the fourteen curriculum doctrines, this matrix records the available Hungarian term(s), the specific weakness(es) of standard vocabulary, and the recommended translation strategy. Terms already fixed by the baseline or by 08_core_glossary.md are marked (fixed); strategy recommendations for new terms are proposed for translation_memory.json inclusion.

Doctrine	Available Hungarian term(s)	Weakness	Recommended strategy
Justification by Faith	igazság, megigazul(ás) (fixed, Critical)	Same word serves both the Reformed forensic-declaration reading and the Catholic infused-transformation reading; Galatians 2:16 is the letter’s thesis verse, making this the single highest-stakes term in the book.	Reuse baseline rendering exactly, no departure. Attach mandatory translator note at every Galatians occurrence (not only Romans occurrences) since 2:16 is a new anchor verse for this doctrine within the curriculum. Pair systematically with works of the law (below) so the contrast Paul draws is visible in Hungarian, not just implied.
The True Gospel versus False Gospels	evangélium (fixed); más evangélium (new); az evangélium igazsága (new)	Hungarian “más” is a general-purpose “different/other” word that does not distinguish ἕτερος (different in kind) from ἄλλος (another of the same kind); readers may hear “más evangélium” as “a variant gospel” rather than Paul’s claim that no second gospel exists at all.	Retain “más evangélium” (no natural single-word Hungarian alternative exists) but mandate a translator note at every 1:6-9 occurrence preserving the ἕτερος/ἄλλος distinction. Do not attempt a compound neologism (e.g., “másféle evangélium”) as primary text — reserve for footnote gloss only, to avoid destabilizing established liturgical/reading vocabulary.
Paul’s Apostleship	apostol (fixed; risk elevated High for Galatians per 08_core_glossary.md)	Term itself is stable; gap is emphatic force, not lexicon: “nem emberektől, sem ember által” (1:1) must read as an emphatic double negation of any human mediation, which Hungarian syntax supports natively — low structural risk, but translators may be tempted to soften for smoothness.	No new vocabulary needed. Flag 1:1 specifically for register check: preserve the doubled negation’s rhetorical force rather than collapsing to a single smoother clause.
Law and Grace	törvény (fixed); kegyelem (fixed, Critical); a törvény cselekedetei (new, Critical)	Hungarian has no separate lexeme distinguishing “law-as-Torah-observed-as-covenant-badge” from “law-as-moral-standard” or “good deeds generally”; “törvény cselekedetei” risks being heard as a subset of the ordinary phrase “jó cselekedetek” (good deeds).	Fix “a törvény cselekedetei” as a distinct, non-substitutable phrase (never abbreviate to “cselekedetek” alone in Galatians contexts). Fence explicitly against “jó cselekedetek” in the forbidden-substitution list (see Part 3).
Crucified with Christ	Krisztussal együtt megfeszíttettem (new, Critical)	Hungarian verbal aspect can express the perfect-passive “has been crucified with” via the past tense plus the reflexive-completive construction, but casual translation drifts toward a present-tense reading (“megfeszülök Krisztussal”) that sounds like ongoing self-mortification.	Fix the perfect-passive rendering exactly as recorded in bible_term_registry.json; forbid present-tense or iterative-aspect renderings as a Critical substitution violation.
The Abrahamic Covenant and Promise	szövetség (fixed, Critical); ígéret (new, High)	Hungarian “szövetség” absorbs both the relational-covenant sense and (in 3:15) the Greek legal-testament/will sense of διαθήκη, which Hungarian legal vocabulary would normally render “végrendelet” (last will) — a term never used in Bible translation for this passage. Additionally, “ígéret” and “szövetség” risk being heard as near-synonyms, collapsing Paul’s structural distinction between promise (prior, unilateral) and law/covenant (later, conditional).	Retain “szövetség” per baseline; add mandatory translator note at 3:15 flagging the dual legal-testament/covenant sense lost in Hungarian. Keep “ígéret” strictly non-interchangeable with “szövetség” in glossary enforcement — treat as separate slots even though English commentary sometimes uses “covenant promise” as a single compound.
The Law’s Purpose	törvény (fixed); nevelő/gyámunk (new, paidagōgos); a törvény átka (new, High); közvetítő (new, High)	Three distinct Greek images (guardian/custodian, curse, mediator) must be kept visually and doctrinally distinct in Hungarian, but all three cluster around the same “törvény” root, risking semantic blur under time pressure in Phase 2 batch translation.	Enforce the three fixed renderings as non-interchangeable units; do not allow “nevelő” to drift toward “tanító” (teacher, which wrongly suggests the law’s positive instructive function is primary rather than its temporary custodial role).
Adoption and Sonship	örökbefogadás (fixed, Medium); Abba (Atya) (fixed); szolga/fiú (new, High)	Low intrinsic ambiguity; the risk is emotional flattening — Hungarian “fiú” alone (without the antithetical “szolga”) can read as a neutral kinship term rather than the letter’s dramatic status-reversal.	No new lexicon needed. Enforce that “szolga” and “fiú” are always translated as a paired antithetical unit at 4:7, never split across separate clauses that dilute the contrast.
Freedom in Christ	szabadság (fixed, High); szolgaság/szolgaság igája (fixed, High)	“Szabadság” in contemporary Hungarian carries strong secular-political and post-1989/1956 national-historical resonance (freedom from foreign/communist rule) that is largely absent from, and could distract from, Paul’s theological freedom-from-law-as-covenant-badge argument.	Retain “szabadság” (no viable substitute exists) but require every occurrence to be paired, per the text’s own 5:13 structure, with the boundary clause against using freedom “as an opportunity for the flesh,” so the political-liberty association is immediately theologically bounded rather than left to resonate unchecked.
Circumcision and the New Creation	körülmetélés (new, High); új teremtés (new, High)	No ritual-collision risk (neither tradition practices literal circumcision), but conceptual flattening risk: readers may hear this as a resolved historical Jewish-Gentile dispute rather than paradigmatic of any works-based badge of standing.	Pair “körülmetélés” with a standing translator note connecting it to “a törvény cselekedetei” at every occurrence (2:3-9; 5:2-3; 6:12-13), per 08_core_glossary.md #18/#71 guidance.
Flesh versus Spirit	test (fixed, High); a test cselekedetei (new, High); a Lélek szerint járni/élni (fixed contextual, High); a Lélek gyümölcse (new, Medium)	The most severe single-word gap in the letter: Hungarian “test” collapses σάρξ’s three distinct senses (neutral-bodily, ethnic-lineage, sin-prone-nature) into one lexeme, and additionally collapses with the ordinary anatomical meaning of “test” (body), risking confusion with σῶμα-type body language elsewhere in Pauline literature.	No single-word fix exists. Mandate a disambiguation translator note at every occurrence flagging which of the three senses is active (see Part 2 below for full treatment). Preserve grammatical singular “a Lélek gyümölcse” (never pluralize) per 08_core_glossary.md #66.
Fruit of the Spirit	a Lélek gyümölcse (new, Medium)	Low ambiguity; primary risk is the singular/plural collapse noted above, and secondary risk of listing the nine qualities as a checklist of separately achievable virtues rather than one organic outcome.	Enforce singular form; recommend a structural note in teaching materials (not the translated text itself) contrasting the singular “gyümölcse” against the plural “cselekedetei” of 5:19’s vice-list.
first, no. remove stray line if present.
Faith Working through Love	a szeretet által munkálkodó hit (new, Critical)	Direct collision with the Catholic technical doctrine of fides caritate formata (Trent: love as constitutive of justifying faith) and the Reformed reading of love strictly as faith’s fruit/evidence, never a contributing cause. Hungarian’s passive/middle-voice resources are weaker than Greek’s, tempting an active/causative-sounding rendering (“a hit szeretet által működik,” which can be misheard as “faith operates by means of love,” suggesting love as an instrument or co-cause).	Fix “a szeretet által munkálkodó hit” exactly, preserving the passive/middle sense (“being worked out through love”) over an active-causative gloss. Mandatory theologian review at 5:6, matching baseline rigor for “grace” and “election.”
Bearing One Another’s Burdens	hordozzátok egymás terheit (new, Low-Medium); Krisztus törvénye (new, Medium-High)	Low lexical risk on its own, but “Krisztus törvénye” sits dangerously close to reintroducing “law” as an external code, undoing 2:16’s argument, unless read together with 5:14’s love-fulfills-the-law statement.	No new lexicon needed; enforce a structural cross-reference note linking 6:2 back to 5:14 and forward-fencing against any reading of “Krisztus törvénye” as a new performance-based standing requirement.

---

Part 2 — Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods

2A. Missing Vocabulary (Hungarian has no dedicated lexeme; a compound, paraphrase, or note is required)

Gap	Greek concept	Why Hungarian lacks a direct equivalent	Resolution
ἕτερος vs. ἄλλος	”different in kind” vs. “another of the same kind” (1:6-7)	Standard Hungarian “más” and “másik” do not map cleanly onto this distinction; both can mean either sense depending on context.	Retain “más evangélium,” mandatory translator note every occurrence (see matrix above).
σάρξ’s three senses	neutral-bodily / ethnic-lineage / sin-prone-nature, one Greek word	”Test” in Hungarian is exclusively the neutral-bodily/anatomical sense in ordinary usage; it has no native ethnic-lineage or sin-nature connotation at all, so those two senses must be entirely supplied by context and translator notes rather than any inherent lexical range.	Mandatory per-occurrence sense-tagging in the segment cache (not the visible text); see 08_core_glossary.md #28.
πίστις Χριστοῦ genitive ambiguity	subjective (“Christ’s own faithfulness”) vs. objective (“faith in Christ”) genitive	Hungarian grammatical case (Krisztusban, “in Christ”) default-resolves the ambiguity toward the objective reading merely by the case ending chosen, silently foreclosing the subjective-genitive scholarly debate that the Greek genuinely leaves open.	Retain “hit Jézus Krisztusban” as primary text (matches established Hungarian Bible tradition and baseline “faith” entry) but mandatory translator note at 2:16, 2:20, 3:22 disclosing the interpretive choice.
παιδαγωγός	a slave entrusted with a minor’s discipline/escort, not instruction	No Hungarian social-institutional analogue exists (the closest historical term, “nevelő,” in modern usage suggests a governess/tutor figure associated with instruction, the opposite of Paul’s point that the law’s guardianship role was custodial, not formative).	Retain “nevelő / gyámunk” as a fixed pair but require the accompanying note that this is a disciplinary escort role, explicitly not a teaching role.
στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου	debated: elementary religious principles or personified cosmic powers	Hungarian has no vocabulary that preserves this ambiguity without tipping toward either a bland abstraction (“alapelvek,” principles) or an occult-power reading (“szellemi erők,” spirit-powers) that would import syncretistic overtones foreign to Hungarian Christian tradition.	Retain “a világ elemei” (literal, deliberately ambiguous, matching the Greek’s own ambiguity); flag for native speaker review with both interpretive options documented, per bible_term_registry.json.
δωρεάν’s two senses	”freely, as an unearned gift” (positive) vs. “in vain, to no purpose” (negative, 2:21)	One Greek lexeme, two nearly opposite theological connotations; Hungarian requires two entirely different words (“ingyen”/grace-adjacent vocabulary vs. “hiába”) with no shared root to signal the underlying lexical identity.	Fix “hiába” for 2:21 specifically; mandatory translator note flagging the lexical identity with grace-vocabulary elsewhere, to preempt back-translation flags.
διαθήκη’s dual legal-testament/covenant sense (3:15)	ordinary Greek legal usage (“a man’s will”) layered under the covenant sense	Hungarian “szövetség” carries only the relational-covenant sense; the legal-testament wordplay Paul exploits (“no one annuls or adds to a man’s covenant/will”) has no natural Hungarian equivalent without switching to “végrendelet,” which is never used for covenant theology.	Retain “szövetség”; mandatory translator note at 3:15 only, explaining the lost legal-testament nuance.

2B. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods (Hungarian has a workable term, but it is already occupied by competing theological/cultural associations that require active fencing)

Term	Crowding source	Fencing required
atyai hagyomány (tradition of the fathers, 1:14)	Shares its root, “hagyomány,” with the technical Catholic category “Szenthagyomány” (Sacred Tradition, held jointly authoritative with Scripture per Trent — already flagged in the Romans baseline’s “inspiration_of_scripture” doctrine).	Mandatory translator note distinguishing Paul’s own prior Jewish ancestral custom from the church’s doctrine of Tradition. Never abbreviate to bare “hagyomány” without the “atyai” qualifier in this passage.
közvetítő (mediator, Moses, 3:19-20)	The more idiomatic and commonly attested Hungarian Bible rendering for this verse is “közbenjáró,” which shares its root with the baseline’s Critical-adjacent “közbenjárás” (intercession) — creating risk that Catholic-formed readers associate Moses-as-lawgiver-mediator with the veneration/intercession of saints and Mary.	Deliberate departure from the more common “közbenjáró”: use “közvetítő” instead, and document the departure explicitly, per bible_term_registry.json’s existing entry. This is already resolved in the core glossary but must be re-emphasized here as an active fencing decision, not a default.
szolgaság family (bondage/slavery, 2:4; 4:1-7; 5:1)	Ordinary Hungarian “szolgaság” and “rabszolgaság” carry heavy connotation from Hungary’s own historical experience of serfdom (jobbágyság) and 20th-century totalitarian subjugation; this can either usefully intensify Paul’s rhetorical force or, unmanaged, redirect the reader’s attention toward national-historical suffering rather than the specific theological bondage of returning to law-works.	No lexical change needed (the association is not doctrinally false, merely liable to redirect attention); teaching notes should acknowledge and channel the resonance toward Paul’s argument rather than let it drift into an unrelated historical register.
szabadság (freedom, 2:4; 5:1, 13)	See matrix above — crowded by contemporary Hungarian political-liberty resonance (1956, 1989).	Bound every occurrence with the 5:13 “not an opportunity for the flesh” qualifier, per matrix entry.
szakadás / eretnekség (factions, 5:20)	“Eretnekség” (heresy) is heavily loaded with centuries of mutual Catholic-Protestant condemnation from the Hungarian Reformation/Counter-Reformation era; using it for Paul’s first-century “faction/party” sense would retroactively import post-Reformation doctrinal-controversy freight into a relational vice-list and reactivate a live intra-Hungarian-Christian sore point.	Forbidden substitution: never render αἵρεσις as “eretnekség” in 5:20. Use “szakadás / párttusa / megosztottság” exclusively, per bible_term_registry.json.
megigézett / megbűvölt (bewitched, 3:1)	Hungarian folk culture (especially in rural and older Reformed and Catholic communities alike) retains a residual “szemmel verés” (evil-eye) superstition; over-vivid rendering risks the text being read as endorsing literal occult causation rather than Paul’s rhetorical accusation of deception.	Render plainly as rhetorical accusation; avoid embellishing vocabulary that would activate folk-magical associations more strongly than the text’s own rhetorical intent.
varázslás / boszorkányság (witchcraft, 5:20)	Hungary’s own early-modern witch-trial history (particularly 17th-18th century) gives this vocabulary a live historical charge.	Render plainly as the text’s condemnation of occult practice; do not add rhetorical embellishment that could seem to comment on or relitigate that history.
Jézus jelei / bélyegei (marks of Jesus, 6:17) — vs. stigmák	Hungarian Catholic devotional tradition has an established loanword, “stigmák/stigmatizáció,” naming the specific mystical phenomenon of Christ-wound-replication in venerated figures (e.g., Padre Pio, widely known in Hungarian Catholic piety). Using this loanword for Paul’s ordinary persecution-scar/slave-branding metaphor would cause Catholic-background readers to hear a miraculous-wounds claim Paul never makes.	Forbidden substitution: never use “stigmák” here. Use “Jézus jelei / Jézus bélyegei” exclusively. Mandatory theologian review at 6:17.
kiválasztás / elhívás (election/calling, 1:15)	Already the sharpest fault line in the Romans baseline (Reformed double predestination vs. Catholic synergism); Galatians 1:15 reactivates this exact tension at the letter’s outset in Paul’s own personal-calling narrative.	No new lexical decision required — reuse baseline terms exactly — but flag for theologian review per the baseline’s existing escalation rule, now applied to a new anchor verse.
igazság family (righteousness/justification, 2:16-21)	Already the Critical fault line in the Romans baseline; Galatians’ core passage (2:15-21) is now the letter’s second major anchor text for this same tension, arguably more concentrated than any single passage in Romans given 2:21’s direct grace-nullification stakes.	Reuse baseline terms exactly; escalate translator-note density specifically within 2:15-21 given its role as this curriculum’s core passage.

---

Part 3 — Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions

Term	Decision	Rationale
Abba	Transliterate, paired with Atya	Matches Romans 8:15 baseline precedent exactly (4:6); preserving the Aramaic intimacy term untranslated, immediately glossed, is already established Hungarian Bible-translation convention.
Ámen, Alleluja	Transliterate (per baseline 12_ai_translation_requirements.md proper-name standards)	Established forms; no Galatians-specific occurrence changes this.
ἀνάθεμα (anathema)	Paraphrase using the existing Hungarian Bible-translation formula “átokverte legyen,” not a transliterated loanword (“anatéma”) and not a weakened paraphrase (“ez helytelen”)	The established formula already carries the correct register of solemn divine judgment; a loanword would sound foreign and clinical, while a weak paraphrase would lose the force of 1:8-9’s double pronouncement.
στίγματα (stigmata)	Paraphrase only; transliteration forbidden — “Jézus jelei / bélyegei”	See Part 2B above. This is the clearest transliteration-avoidance decision in the letter: the existing Hungarian loanword “stigmák” is theologically occupied by a distinct Catholic devotional referent.
αἵρεσις (hairesis)	Paraphrase; the natural-seeming transliteration/cognate “eretnekség” forbidden	See Part 2B above.
Ἰουδαϊσμός (Judaism)	Paraphrase — “zsidó hitgyakorlat,” not the transliterated “judaizmus"	"Judaizmus” in contemporary Hungarian usage tends toward a modern comparative-religion register (naming the world religion Judaism as a contemporary system) rather than Paul’s specific first-century referent (his own former manner of Torah-observant life); the descriptive paraphrase keeps the historical-narrative register.
ἰουδαΐζω (Judaize)	Paraphrase — “zsidó módra élni”	No natural Hungarian verb exists; descriptive paraphrase is the only viable option and carries acceptably low ambiguity.
παιδαγωγός (paidagōgos)	Paraphrase, not transliteration (“pedagógus”)	The Hungarian cognate “pedagógus” means “teacher/educator” in contemporary usage — nearly the opposite of Paul’s point about the law’s custodial-not-instructive role. Transliteration would actively mislead; “nevelő/gyámunk” paraphrase is required.
μεσίτης (mediator)	Paraphrase, deliberately “közvetítő” rather than the more idiomatic “közbenjáró”	See Part 2B above; a controlled paraphrase choice made specifically to avoid crowding the baseline’s “közbenjárás” (intercession) term.
στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου	Paraphrase, literal — “a világ elemei”	Deliberately retains the source ambiguity rather than resolving it toward either a transliterated technical term (none exists) or an interpretive gloss.
βαπτίζω (baptized into Christ)	Established descriptive rendering, not transliteration — “megkeresztelkedtetek Krisztusba”	Hungarian already has a fully naturalized non-transliterated verb (“keresztelkedik”) from centuries of Bible-translation history; no transliteration question arises, but the phrase is flagged Critical-adjacent for the sacramental-efficacy question it raises (see baseline entry).
Χριστός-genitive constructions (πίστις Χριστοῦ)	Paraphrase via case ending, not transliteration — “hit Jézus Krisztusban”	Already addressed under missing vocabulary (Part 2A); noted here for completeness since the alternative of leaving a Greek-derived technical phrase untranslated was considered and rejected as inaccessible to lay readers.

General transliteration policy for this curriculum: transliterate only where (a) an established, doctrinally uncontested Hungarian Bible-translation precedent already exists (Abba, Ámen, Alleluja) and (b) no existing Hungarian loanword or cognate is already occupied by a distinct, potentially confusable technical religious referent. Where a plausible transliteration or cognate exists but is theologically occupied (stigmák, eretnekség, pedagógus, judaizmus), paraphrase is mandatory and the transliteration option is recorded as a forbidden substitution.

---

Part 4 — Ranked List of Galatians’ Highest-Risk Ambiguities

Ranked by combined severity of (a) doctrinal weight per the curriculum’s fourteen doctrines and (b) genuine linguistic/lexical ambiguity risk in Hungarian specifically (i.e., ranking prioritizes cases where the Hungarian rendering itself could mislead, not merely cases that are doctrinally sensitive for reasons independent of translation).

1. Justification / righteousness terminology in the core passage (2:15-21) — “igazság / megigazul(ás).” The letter’s thesis verse sits inside the curriculum’s designated core passage; the Reformed forensic-declaration vs. Catholic infused-transformation fault line is maximally concentrated here, compounded by 2:21’s direct “if righteousness were through the law, Christ died in vain (hiába)” nullification logic. Highest doctrinal stakes plus highest lexical crowding in the entire letter.
2. Works of the law vs. good works generally — “a törvény cselekedetei” vs. “jó cselekedetek.” A genuine risk of silent conflation that would erase Paul’s precise polemical target (Torah-observance-as-covenant-badge) and blur it with the affirmed post-justification obedience of 5:6 and 6:2, collapsing two doctrines the letter deliberately keeps distinct.
3. πίστις Χριστοῦ genitive ambiguity — “hit Jézus Krisztusban.” Hungarian grammar silently forecloses a live scholarly debate (subjective vs. objective genitive) at three separate occurrences (2:16, 2:20, 3:22) without any signal to the reader that a translation decision was made at all.
4. Faith working through love (5:6) — direct collision with fides caritate formata vs. Reformed fruit-not-cause reading; Hungarian’s weaker passive/middle-voice resources risk an accidental causative reading that would side with one systematic tradition over the other within the text itself.
5. σάρξ’s three collapsed senses — “test” doing triple duty (neutral-bodily, ethnic-lineage, sin-prone-nature) across 2:16, 2:20, 4:23/29, and 5:13-24, with no inherent Hungarian lexical signal distinguishing them — the single most pervasive (if not most acute per-instance) ambiguity in the letter.
6. Crucified with Christ (2:19-20) — aspectual risk that a present/ongoing-sounding Hungarian rendering could convert a completed judicial reality into an implied program of ascetic self-mortification, aligning the text with a merit/penance framework foreign to Paul’s argument, precisely within the core passage.
7. Another/different gospel (1:6-7) — ἕτερος/ἄλλος distinction with no Hungarian lexical marker; mistranslation risk is that readers hear “a variant, still-valid gospel” rather than Paul’s actual claim that no second gospel exists.
8. Hairesis / factions (5:20) vs. eretnekség — low ambiguity once the forbidden substitution is enforced, but ranked this high because the failure mode (defaulting to the more familiar cognate-adjacent word) is a realistic error under batch-translation time pressure and would reactivate genuine Hungarian confessional history.
9. Stigmata / marks of Jesus (6:17) vs. stigmák — same failure-mode logic as #8; low ambiguity if enforced, high consequence (a false miraculous-wounds claim attributed to Paul) if the forbidden loanword slips through.
10. Mediator (3:19-20) — közvetítő vs. közbenjáró — realistic drift risk toward the more idiomatic common rendering, which would quietly reopen the baseline’s Marian/saints-intercession fault line at a passage about Moses, not about prayer.
11. Paidagōgos / guardian (3:24-25) — risk of the law’s custodial role being heard as an instructional/formative role if “nevelő” drifts toward its modern “educator” connotation, subtly inverting Paul’s point about the law’s temporary, non-salvific function.
12. Curse of the law (3:10, 13) — risk of a Marcionite-adjacent misreading (the law itself as evil) if the note distinguishing “the law’s own sanctions” from “the law’s intrinsic character” is dropped under editorial pressure to shorten the text.
13. Dōrean’s two senses (2:21 “in vain” vs. grace-vocabulary “freely given” elsewhere) — internally consistent within Galatians itself but creates a cross-document consistency trap for reviewers checking against Romans-derived grace vocabulary.
14. Diathēkē’s legal-testament nuance (3:15) — low practical risk (the note is easily supplied) but genuinely unrecoverable from the Hungarian word alone if the note is omitted, since “szövetség” carries no trace of the legal-will sense Paul’s wordplay depends on.
15. Israel of God (6:16) — lower on strictly linguistic-ambiguity grounds (the phrase itself translates plainly) but retained on this list because the referent-ambiguity is genuinely unresolved by the Greek itself and any Hungarian phrasing choice risks appearing to adjudicate a live, pastorally weighty exegetical and historically sensitive question.

---

Summary for Downstream Phases

• No terms in this analysis require a new Hungarian coinage (neologism); every gap is resolved through paraphrase, existing-lexeme reuse with mandatory disambiguation notes, or explicit forbidden-substitution fencing.
• Six forbidden substitutions are identified for mandatory enforcement in Phase 2 validation, extending the baseline’s existing forbidden-substitution list: (1) “jó cselekedetek” for works of the law, (2) present-tense/iterative renderings of “crucified with Christ,” (3) “eretnekség” for factions (5:20), (4) “stigmák” for marks of Jesus (6:17), (5) “közbenjáró” for mediator (3:19-20), (6) “pedagógus” for paidagōgos (3:24-25).
• The core passage (2:15-21) concentrates the letter’s three highest-ranked ambiguities (#1, #2, #6 above) in six verses, confirming its status as both the theological anchor and the highest-density review zone for Phase 2 segment translation.
• All findings here are consistent with and extend, without contradicting, the Romans-baseline translation_memory.json risk tiers and the curriculum-specific 08_core_glossary.md / bible_term_registry.json already produced for Galatians.

End of linguistic gap analysis. See analysis/07_semantic_analysis.md for full verse-by-verse argumentation and analysis/08_core_glossary.md for the consolidated term list this analysis draws from.