Step 8: Linguistic Gap Analysis — Philippians (English → Marathi)

0. Purpose and Method

This analysis identifies where the Marathi language does — and does not — already have adequate vocabulary for the eight curriculum doctrines, with Philippians 2:1–11 as the theological anchor but coverage extending across the full letter (chapters 1–4). It classifies every doctrine-load-bearing concept into one of four situations:

1. Adequate existing term (reuse baseline, no new work needed)
2. Missing vocabulary (no existing Marathi word/phrase carries the concept at all; coinage or compound construction required)
3. Crowded semantic neighborhood (a Marathi word exists but is already claimed by Warkari bhakti, Hindu philosophical/yogic vocabulary, or Navayana Buddhist vocabulary, and must be “fenced” — restricted, qualified, or paired with clarifying language — to prevent doctrinal collision)
4. Genuine translation ambiguity (the Greek itself is debated/polyvalent, and the Marathi rendering commits the translator to one interpretive path)

This document’s findings are already reflected in 08_core_glossary.md and bible_term_registry.json; here we show the underlying gap analysis and reasoning, and rank the resulting risks.

Full-book confirmation: All four chapters of Philippians were reviewed for vocabulary load. Chapters 1, 2, and 3 carry the overwhelming majority of new doctrinal vocabulary (kenosis hymn in ch. 2; law/righteousness polemic in ch. 3). Chapter 4 contributes the contentment/αὐτάρκεια cluster and the partnership/financial-gift cluster, both analyzed below. No chapter is silently skipped; sections 1 and 5 note explicitly where a passage introduces no new gap beyond baseline terms already governing it (e.g., Phil 4:2-3 personal greetings, 4:21-23 closing greetings — reviewed, no new terms).

---

1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

1.1 The Incarnation and Self-Emptying of Christ (Kenosis) — Phil 2:6-8

Available Marathi term(s)	Weakness / collision risk	Recommended strategy
अवतार (avatāra)	Ready-made, fluent, and exactly what a Marathi reader would reach for to describe a deity taking visible form — but it names repeatable, partial divine descents (Krishna/Vitthal among Vishnu’s das avatars) with no permanent incarnation and no genuine, full humanity.	Forbidden (per baseline). Never used for ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος.
रिकामे करणे (rikāme karṇe, “to empty”)	Etymologically closest to κενόω, but Marathi religious readers formed by Navayana Buddhism will hear this against śūnyatā/anatta — emptying of self, not emptying of status/prerogative. Risk of implying Christ’s deity was extinguished or that “emptying” = achieving a self-less state, the very opposite of the doctrine.	Retain रिकामे करणे as the literal rendering (it is the best available option and matches KJV/ESV translation tradition), but mandatory paired teaching note on every occurrence clarifying: emptied of status/prerogative displayed, full divine nature retained throughout (cf. “form of God” still true in v.6 and glorified body still “his” in 3:21). This is not vocabulary substitution but obligatory doctrinal fencing.
देवाचे स्वरूप (devāce svarūp, “form of God”)	No existing single Marathi word carries “essential nature made outwardly visible” (μορφή); स्वरूप is the best available compound but by itself can be read merely as “appearance/likeness,” softening full deity.	Retain देवाचे स्वरूप, but pair explicitly with देवाचा पुत्र (established baseline Sonship term) in teaching material so स्वरूप is anchored to full ontological Sonship, not mere resemblance.
दासाचे रूप (dāsāce rūp, “form of a servant”)	No collision risk from other traditions, but requires structural pairing with स्वरूप above (रूप/स्वरूप wordplay) to preserve the hymn’s chiastic structure; a translator unaware of this could render 2:6 and 2:7 with unrelated vocabulary, destroying the parallel.	Preserve रूप root in both v.6 and v.7 renderings.

Verdict: This doctrine has no adequate existing Marathi vocabulary at all for κενόω/μορφή — it is a genuine missing-vocabulary case requiring constructed compounds, not a simple substitution problem. See §2.1.

---

1.2 Joy in Suffering and Imprisonment — Phil 1:12-30; 2:17-18; 3:1; 4:4,10

Available term(s)	Weakness	Strategy
आनंद (ānand)	Fluent, universal Marathi word for joy — but also the exact word used for Warkari bhakti kirtan-ecstasy (Vitthal-bhakti-आनंद at Pandharpur) and adjacent to Buddhist equanimity/detachment-derived contentment. Both associated traditions locate the joy’s source in devotional practice or inner detachment, not in an external, historical, Christ-anchored fact.	Reuse आनंद (no better word exists) but fence obligatorily: every occurrence in teaching material must retain Paul’s own grammatical anchor “in the Lord” (प्रभूमध्ये) / “in Christ,” never presented as free-floating disposition.
बंधने (bandhane, “bonds/chains”)	No collision risk; concrete and historical.	Reuse as-is; keep literal, not metaphorical.
कृपापूर्वक दिले गेले आहे (suffering as grace-gift, 1:29)	Marathi has no natural idiom for “suffering as a granted gift” — this is a genuinely foreign theological claim, and the literal-translation risk is that it sounds like suffering as deserved karmic consequence, precisely the doctrine Ambedkarite Buddhist converts explicitly rejected when leaving caste Hinduism.	Constructed compound (already in glossary); mandatory theologian review every occurrence; teaching note must state explicitly this is privilege, not penalty.

---

1.3 Unity and Humility in the Church — Phil 1:27; 2:1-4, 14; 4:2-3

Available term(s)	Weakness	Strategy
नम्रता (namratā, “humility”)	Common Marathi virtue-word, but already loaded with (a) caste-social deference expectations and (b) bhakti self-abasement before a guru/deity. Risk: readers may hear a call to social/caste subordination rather than Christ-patterned mutual self-giving.	Reuse नम्रता (no better word exists) but every occurrence must be explicitly Christ-anchored — glossed with reference to 2:5-8 (“the same mind as Christ Jesus”), never presented as generic social virtue.
एकचित्त असणे / मनोवृत्ती ठेवणे (phroneō)	No single Marathi word carries φρονέω’s sense of a settled disposition of the whole person as opposed to an opinion; risk of flattening into “think the same thoughts” (intellectual agreement only).	Constructed phrase; must be taught as a refrain-verb tying chs. 1–4 together (2:5 is the hinge to Christology).
एकजीव (sympsychoi, “one-souled”)	Superficially close to Advaitic monistic language (ātman merging into Brahman, loss of individual distinctness) — a philosophically live idea in Hindu-influenced Marathi religious vocabulary.	Fence explicitly: relational unity of distinct persons, not metaphysical soul-merger.
व्यर्थ अभिमान (kenodoxia, “empty conceit”)	No collision risk; genuinely missing vocabulary constructed as compound. Bonus: shares the “empty” root with κενόω, worth flagging in teaching notes as the vice contrasted with Christ’s self-emptying virtue.	Retain; note κεν- root connection in teaching material.

---

1.4 Righteousness by Faith versus the Law — Phil 3:2-11

Available term(s)	Weakness	Strategy
नीतिमत्त्व / नियमशास्त्र / विश्वास / आरोपित नीतिमत्त्व	All already established, Critical/High risk baseline terms (never धर्म/धम्म). Philippians 3:9 is this curriculum’s doctrinal center for the whole cluster — the two righteousnesses (ἐκ νόμου vs. διὰ πίστεως) sit in the same verse, in explicit antithesis, which is more compact and therefore higher-stakes than any single verse in Romans.	Reuse baseline terms exactly; do not renegotiate them for this letter. Flag 3:9 as requiring the same “mandatory pairing” discipline as Romans 4 (never state one half of the antithesis without the other in the same sentence/segment).
घाण / कचरा (skybala, “rubbish/dung”)	Marathi has softer default options (e.g. निरुपयोगी वस्तू “useless things”) that would drain Paul’s deliberately shocking coarseness. Risk is under-translation, not collision with another tradition.	Prefer a stronger idiom (e.g. उकिरड्यातील घाण, “refuse in the garbage-heap”) over the blandest option, to preserve Paul’s visceral force.
ख्रिस्ताला ओळखणे (gnōsis Christou, “knowing Christ”)	ज्ञान (jñāna) — the obvious one-word gloss for γνῶσις — is a technical term of the Hindu jñāna-mārga (path of self-realizing knowledge) and closely parallel to Buddhist prajñā/bodhi, both self-attained through discipline/meditation, not received relationally from a person.	Do not use ज्ञान alone under any circumstance for this concept. Use the relational verb ओळखणे (“to know/recognize [a person]”) and keep the personal object (“ख्रिस्त येशू माझा प्रभू”) grammatically explicit in every occurrence.
इब्री लोकांतील इब्री / परोशी	Established descriptive NT terms; no risk.	Reuse as-is (Low risk).

---

1.5 Contentment in All Circumstances — Phil 4:11-13

Available term(s)	Weakness	Strategy
समाधान / संतोष (autarkeia, “contentment/sufficiency”)	This is the single most crowded semantic neighborhood in the letter: (1) the Greek term αὐτάρκεια is itself a loaded Stoic philosophical term for self-generated inner sufficiency; (2) संतोष is one of Patanjali’s yogic niyamas, cultivated through vairāgya (renunciate detachment); (3) it closely parallels Buddhist upekkhā (equanimity), cultivated through non-attachment on the Eightfold Path. All three neighboring concepts locate contentment’s source in the practitioner’s own inner discipline. Paul’s contentment (4:13) is explicitly Christ-empowered, sourced outside the self.	Reuse समाधान/समाधानी (no better word exists) but structurally forbid isolating 4:11-12 from 4:13 in any translation unit, section break, or pull-quote. This is the single highest cross-tradition collision risk in the letter and must carry mandatory theologian review every occurrence.
मला सामर्थ्य देणाऱ्याद्वारे (4:13)	Reuses baseline सामर्थ्य (never शक्ती). Distinct risk: this verse is globally over-quoted in isolation as a generic self-empowerment/achievement slogan (sports, exams, ambition), even among English-speaking Christians; the same popular-isolation risk will recur in Marathi.	Teaching material must always quote 4:13 attached to its contentment context (4:11-12), never as a stand-alone motivational maxim.
मला रहस्य कळले आहे (memyēmai, “I have been initiated”)	μεμύημαι borrows mystery-religion initiation vocabulary; a literal “initiated into secret knowledge” rendering risks resonance with tantric/yogic guhya-vidyā (esoteric, ritually transmitted secret knowledge).	Render experientially (“I have learned through experience/discovered the secret”) rather than ritually; teaching note distinguishes from initiation-transmission traditions.

---

1.6 Citizenship in Heaven — Phil 1:27; 3:20-21

Available term(s)	Weakness	Strategy
नागरिकत्व (politeuma, “citizenship”)	Modern Marathi नागरिकत्व is a civic/legal-nationalist term (voter ID, passport, constitutional citizenship) with no natural devotional resonance — this is actually a missing-vocabulary situation in the opposite direction: the word exists but has never carried spiritual freight in Marathi religious usage, so its metaphorical extension to “heavenly citizenship” must be built up rather than corrected.	Retain नागरिकत्व; explicitly teach it as a primary-allegiance claim that relativizes (without erasing) caste, communal, and national identity — continuing the baseline’s christian_identity_in_christ doctrine. This has unusual pastoral resonance in Maharashtra given the 1956 Ambedkarite conversion’s own themes of identity-transcending community.
समरूप होणे (symmorphos, “conformed”)	No collision risk; deliberately reuses रूप root from 2:6-7 to link present suffering/future glory to the kenosis hymn’s Christology.	Preserve the रूप-root echo; do not substitute a synonym that breaks the intertextual link.
तारणारा (sōtēr, “Savior”)	Shares baseline तारण root; risk only if translators reach for मोक्षदाता/मुक्तिदाता (a Vaishnav-bhakti “grantor of liberation” title), which must never be used.	Reuse तारणारा exactly.

---

1.7 Partnership in the Gospel — Phil 1:5; 2:1; 4:14-18

Available term(s)	Weakness	Strategy
सहभागिता (koinōnia)	Baseline Low-risk term for Romans, but in Philippians κοινωνία repeatedly denotes concrete financial partnership (the Philippians’ monetary gift, 4:15-16), a material dimension सहभागिता by itself reads as purely relational/spiritual fellowship and under-specifies.	Elevate risk to High for this curriculum (already reflected in registry); teaching material must make the financial-partnership sense explicit at 1:5, 4:14-16, not assume it is self-evident from a term whose Romans usage was purely relational.
अर्पण होणे / बलिदान (thysia, “sacrifice/offering”)	बलिदान is required and correct, but Marathi बलिदान sits near यज्ञ (Vedic/Hindu ritual fire-sacrifice) and पूजा-offering (naivedya/arghya poured out to a deity) in the general religious lexicon.	Never यज्ञ. Teaching notes must anchor बलिदान/अर्पण explicitly to OT sacrificial-fragrance imagery (Lev. 1-2 background), and clarify this is metaphorical costly service, not a ritual performed to gain divine favor.
सुवासिक सुगंध (fragrant offering, 4:18)	Same collision family as above (puja-incense-offering imagery).	Pair with same OT-background teaching note; clarify it does not repeat or substitute for Christ’s own once-for-all sacrifice.

---

1.8 Pressing on toward the Goal in Christ — Phil 3:12-16

Available term(s)	Weakness	Strategy
परिपक्व / पूर्ण (teleios, “mature/complete”)	Risk of suggesting a self-attained state of perfection through spiritual discipline — closely resembling yogic siddhi-attainment or Buddhist nibbāna/arahantship reached via the Eightfold Path. Paul explicitly denies having “already become τέλειος” in the same breath (3:12), which is the safeguard.	Reuse परिपक्व/पूर्ण but always translate 3:12 and 3:15 together so the self-denial (“not that I have already obtained this… not that I am already perfect”) is never separated from any claim to maturity elsewhere in the letter.
पाठलाग करत राहणे (diōkō, “press on/pursue”)	No collision risk; genuinely just needs to avoid sounding like anxious self-effort to earn an uncertain outcome.	Reuse; teaching note should stress “because Christ Jesus has made me his own” (3:12b) as the ground of the pursuit, not its uncertain condition.
ध्येय / बक्षीस (goal/prize)	No collision risk; reuses baseline पाचारण (“calling”) root for “upward call” — a deliberate continuity worth flagging pedagogically.	Reuse; note baseline-root continuity in teaching material.

---

2. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods

2.1 Genuinely Missing Vocabulary (no Marathi term exists; construction required)

These concepts have no pre-existing Marathi word or phrase at all — Marathi religious vocabulary (Christian, Hindu, Warkari, or Buddhist) simply does not name them, so risk is under-construction/ambiguity, not collision with a rival tradition:

Concept	Why missing	Constructed rendering
κενόω self-emptying of divine status while retaining full deity (as opposed to loss/negation of self)	No devotional or philosophical tradition in Marathi’s religious environment articulates a “temporary voluntary non-use of one’s own rightful glory while remaining fully who one is” — Hindu avatar theology assumes partial/repeated descent, Buddhist śūnyatā assumes actual self-negation	स्वतःला रिकामे केले + mandatory paired teaching note (§1.1)
ἁρπαγμός — already-possessed status not “exploited”	Marathi has no idiom distinguishing “seizing something not yet had” from “declining to exploit something already held”	बळकावून ठेवण्यासारखी गोष्ट + translator note flagging the interpretive choice
”grace-gift of suffering” (ἐχαρίσθη, 1:29)	No Marathi religious tradition frames suffering as a privileged gift rather than either (a) karmic consequence or (b) meaningless misfortune to be transcended	कृपापूर्वक दिले गेले आहे + mandatory theologian review
φρονέω as settled whole-person disposition (distinct from mere opinion)	Marathi verbs for “think” (विचार करणे) default to cognitive/opinion sense	एकचित्त असणे / मनोवृत्ती ठेवणे (constructed compound)
αὐτάρκεια redefined as Christ-dependent (not self-generated) contentment	Every existing Marathi contentment-vocabulary option (संतोष, समाधान) is already claimed by a self-cultivation framework (yogic or Buddhist)	समाधान/समाधानी, structurally bound to 4:13 (§1.5)
πολίτευμα as primary heavenly allegiance	नागरिकत्व exists but has never carried spiritual/eschatological freight in ordinary Marathi usage	नागरिकत्व + built-up teaching frame (§1.6)

2.2 Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods (term exists but is contested territory; needs fencing)

These concepts have a ready Marathi word — which is precisely the danger, because the word arrives already carrying a rival theological framework:

Marathi term	Competing claimant(s)	Fencing required
आनंद (joy)	Warkari bhakti kirtan-ecstasy; Buddhist equanimity/detachment	Always pair with “in the Lord” / “in Christ” anchor
नम्रता (humility)	Caste-social deference; bhakti self-abasement before guru/deity	Always anchor to Christ’s pattern (2:5-8), never presented as generic social virtue
ज्ञान-adjacent vocabulary (knowledge of Christ)	Hindu jñāna-mārga; Buddhist prajñā/bodhi	Avoid ज्ञान alone; use relational ओळखणे with explicit personal object
समाधान/संतोष (contentment)	Stoic autarkeia (source concept itself); yogic santoṣa/vairāgya; Buddhist upekkhā	Never isolate from 4:13’s Christ-empowerment clause
दास (slave/bondservant, 1:1, 2:7)	Historical/social bonded-labor and caste-linked servile-labor associations in Maharashtra	Handle pastorally; note that Christ’s own assumption of this status dignifies rather than degrades it — but do not soften the term itself
बलिदान (sacrifice/offering)	Vedic यज्ञ; Hindu पूजा/naivedya offering-ritual practice	Anchor explicitly to OT sacrificial background; never यज्ञ
एकजीव (one-souled unity)	Advaitic monistic soul-merger (ātman-Brahman)	Fence as relational unity of distinct persons, not metaphysical dissolution
अवतार (avoided entirely)	Vaishnav avatar-descent (Vitthal/Krishna)	Never used (forbidden substitution, carried over from baseline)

---

3. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions

Term	Decision	Rationale
Χριστός in “Christ Jesus”	Transliterate as proper name (ख्रिस्त), not मसीहा	In Philippians, Χριστός functions overwhelmingly as part of a proper name, not an explicit messianic-title claim; reserve मसीहा (paraphrase-as-title) for explicit messianic-promise teaching contexts only, per glossary Section A note
κύριος (Lord)	Paraphrase (प्रभू), not transliterated	Established Marathi Bible convention; transliterating would lose the confessional force carried by प्रभू since Romans
μορφή (form)	Paraphrase (स्वरूप / रूप), constructed compound, not transliterated	No transliteration option exists for a Greek philosophical/theological term with no Marathi cognate; must paraphrase carefully to preserve the μορφή-root echo across 2:6-7 and 3:21
σταυρός (cross)	Established loanword (क्रूस)	Already fully naturalized in Marathi Christian usage; neither fresh transliteration nor paraphrase needed
Ἀββᾶ (Abba) — carried over from Romans baseline, not in Philippians itself but relevant to the adoption/Father cluster underlying 2:11, 4:20	Transliterate (अब्बा), retained alongside पिता	Consistency rule from baseline; no Philippians-specific change
αὐτάρκεια (contentment)	Paraphrase (समाधान/समाधानी), not transliterated	A transliterated Greek philosophical loanword would be opaque to readers; paraphrase is necessary but must be fenced (§2.2)
ἁρπαγμός	Paraphrase with translator note, not transliterated	The term is a theological crux with no single settled English gloss either; a descriptive Marathi phrase (बळकावून ठेवण्यासारखी गोष्ट) plus a mandatory footnote is safer than a single-word coinage that would hide the interpretive choice
σκύβαλα (rubbish)	Paraphrase, coarse register preserved	No transliteration tradition exists for this word; must not default to the blandest paraphrase available (see §1.4)
Ἑβραῖος ἐξ Ἑβραίων / Φαρισαῖος	Established transliterated NT proper/technical terms (इब्री, परोशी)	Already fixed in Marathi NT tradition; Low risk, reuse as-is
Ἐπαφρόδιτος, Εὐοδία, Συντύχη, Κλήμης (proper names, 2:25; 4:2-3)	Transliterate per Marathi Bible naming conventions, reviewed but low doctrinal risk	Reviewed for chapter-coverage completeness; no doctrinal content, standard name-transliteration table to be supplied in Phase 2 assets, not repeated here

---

4. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities in Philippians

Ranked by (a) doctrinal centrality to the core passage or curriculum doctrines, (b) severity of potential syncretism/misreading, and (c) whether the ambiguity is inherent to the Greek itself (translator must commit to an interpretation) or purely a target-language collision risk.

1. ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν / “emptied himself” (Phil 2:7) — Highest risk in the entire curriculum. Greek-inherent ambiguity (what, precisely, was emptied?) compounds with a severe Marathi collision (Buddhist śūnyatā/anatta self-negation). A wrong turn here corrupts the doctrine of the Incarnation itself. Mandatory theologian review, every occurrence.

2. ἁρπαγμός / “a thing to be grasped” (Phil 2:6) — Genuinely disputed in Greek scholarship (active seizing vs. already-possessed-but-not-exploited); the wrong choice risks implying adoptionism (Christ earned or gained equality with God). Requires translator note and theologian sign-off.

3. αὐτάρκεια / “contentment” (Phil 4:11-13) — Three-way collision (Stoic source-concept, yogic santoṣa, Buddhist upekkhā), compounded by the popular-isolation risk of 4:13 as a stand-alone slogan. Structural safeguard (never separate 4:11-13) is non-negotiable.

4. κατεργάζεσθε τὴν ἑαυτῶν σωτηρίαν / “work out your own salvation” (Phil 2:12) — Read alone, this sentence is nearly indistinguishable in surface meaning from the Eightfold Path’s self-effort framework; only 2:13, in the very next breath, saves it. Segment-boundary risk: if Phase 2 processing ever splits 2:12 and 2:13 into different segments, the doctrine is at risk of inversion.

5. γνῶσις Χριστοῦ / “knowing Christ” (Phil 3:8) — ज्ञान is unusable alone; even the safer ओळखणे-based paraphrase must retain the personal object every time, or it collapses toward jñāna-mārga/prajñā self-attainment.

6. ἐχαρίσθη / “it has been granted [to suffer]” (Phil 1:29) — Adjacent to the single most painful doctrinal collision available to this audience: Ambedkarite communities’ explicit rejection of birth-karma explanations of suffering. A careless rendering could sound like precisely what these readers converted away from.

7. τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα / “the name above every name” (Phil 2:9) — Without an explicit teaching-note connection to Isaiah 45:23 (LORD/YHWH), Christ’s exaltation risks being read as an elevated-teacher honor (Buddha-like veneration) rather than identification with the one supreme God.

8. ταπεινοφροσύνη / “humility” (Phil 2:3) — Ready Marathi word, but pre-loaded with caste-deference and guru-bhakti self-abasement associations; must be re-anchored to Christ’s pattern in every occurrence, not treated as a generic virtue-word needing no comment.

9. πολίτευμα / “citizenship” (Phil 3:20) — Not a collision risk so much as an under-resourced metaphor: नागरिकत्व has no devotional resonance to draw on in ordinary Marathi and must be built up pedagogically from nothing, in a context (Maharashtra, post-1956) where identity-transcending-community claims carry unusual living weight.

10. κοινωνία / “partnership” as material/financial giving (Phil 1:5; 4:14-16) — Lower doctrinal severity than items 1-9, but a real risk of under-translation: सहभागिता’s Romans-established purely relational sense will cause readers to miss the concrete financial-partnership dimension distinctive to this letter unless explicitly taught.

11. τέλειος / “mature/perfect” (Phil 3:12,15) — Risk of siddhi/nibbāna-attainment framing if 3:12’s self-denial (“not that I have already… become perfect”) is ever translated or excerpted apart from 3:15’s qualified claim.

12. σύμψυχοι / “one in soul” (Phil 2:2) — Lower frequency/impact than the above, but a live risk of Advaitic monistic misreading if presented without relational qualification.

---

5. Chapters Reviewed with No New Vocabulary Gaps

Per the full-book coverage mandate, the following passages were reviewed and confirmed to introduce no new terms or doctrines beyond baseline reuse and the items already catalogued above:

• Phil 1:1-2 (salutation) — reuses baseline lord/god/father/saints; δοῦλος/ἐπίσκοπος/διάκονος handled in §1 above.
• Phil 1:3-11 (thanksgiving/prayer) — reuses baseline thanksgiving, fellowship, love, righteousness, glory; no new gap.
• Phil 2:19-30 (Timothy and Epaphroditus) — proper names and standard commendation vocabulary (सेवा, बंधू); no new doctrinal terms beyond §3’s name-transliteration note.
• Phil 4:1-9 (closing exhortations, except 4:6-7 peace and 4:4/4:10 joy already covered above) — standard exhortation vocabulary (उत्तेजन देणे, baseline); no new gap.
• Phil 4:19-23 (closing blessing) — reuses baseline glory, grace, saints; no new gap.

---

This analysis feeds directly into 08_core_glossary.md (Section B terms are the direct output of the “missing vocabulary” and “crowded neighborhood” findings above) and must be cross-checked against bible_term_registry.json and doctrine_risk_registry.json risk-tier assignments in subsequent Phase 1 steps.