Linguistic Gap Analysis
Linguistic Gap Analysis: 2 Peter — English → Odia
0. Scope and Method
This analysis covers 2 Peter 1–3 in full, anchored theologically in the core passage (1:16–21) but scoped to the entire letter, per full-book coverage mandate. For each of the seven assigned doctrines, it identifies:
- What Odia vocabulary is already available (reused from the Romans baseline or newly proposed in
08_core_glossary.md), - Where that vocabulary is weak, absent, or dangerously overlapping with existing Odia religious semantic fields (chiefly Odia Vaishnavism/Jagannath devotion, Sāṅkhya/Vedantic philosophical vocabulary, and folk astrology/shrine practice), and
- A recommended handling strategy (reuse / compound-qualify / transliterate / paraphrase-descriptively / coin-with-note).
Chapter coverage check: Chapter 1 — core passage, virtue chain, divine nature, inspiration mechanism (extensive new vocabulary). Chapter 2 — false teachers, judgment exemplars, δεσπότης risk (extensive new vocabulary). Chapter 3 — Day of the Lord, patience, repentance, new creation (extensive new vocabulary). All three chapters reviewed; none is vocabulary-neutral.
1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix
| Doctrine | Available Odia Terms | Weaknesses / Gaps | Recommended Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reliability and Inspiration of Scripture | ପବିତ୍ର ଶାସ୍ତ୍ର (Scripture), ଭବିଷ୍ୟଦ୍ବାଣୀ (prophecy), ଭବିଷ୍ୟଦ୍ବକ୍ତା (prophet), ଚାଳିତ ହୋଇ (carried along), ନିଜ ମନଇଚ୍ଛା ବ୍ୟାଖ୍ୟା (private interpretation), ପ୍ରତ୍ୟକ୍ଷଦର୍ଶୀ (eyewitness), କାଳ୍ପନିକ କାହାଣୀ (fabricated story) | Bare ଶାସ୍ତ୍ର is the generic Sanskrit-derived word for any authoritative religious/philosophical treatise, directly overlapping with Jagannath Das’s Odia Bhagavata and other Panchasakha śāstra-class writings revered and read aloud daily in bhagavata tungi halls. ଚାଳିତ ହୋଇ (“carried along”) must be distinguished from oracular/trance possession vocabulary used of folk shrine mediums (deuḷi/kalasi possession states) that is culturally available and could be reached for instead. | Always qualify ଶାସ୍ତ୍ର with ପବିତ୍ର; never leave bare. Retain ଚାଳିତ ହୋଇ but pair with explanatory phrase distinguishing Spirit-directed willing human speech from involuntary trance possession (contrast to shrine mediumship) at first occurrence (1:21). Keep ପ୍ରତ୍ୟକ୍ଷଦର୍ଶୀ to anchor the doctrine in verifiable historical eyewitness testimony rather than mystical vision. |
| Growing in Christian Virtue | ସଦ୍ଗୁଣ (virtue), ଈଶ୍ୱରଭକ୍ତି (godliness), ପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ଜ୍ଞାନ (full knowledge), ଜ୍ଞାନ (knowledge), ଆତ୍ମସଂଯମ (self-control), ସହିଷ୍ଣୁତା (endurance), ଭ୍ରାତୃପ୍ରେମ (brotherly love), ପ୍ରେମ (love) | The entire virtue chain (1:5–7) sits on top of pre-existing, philosophically loaded Odia vocabulary: ଗୁଣ evokes Sāṅkhya’s three guṇas; ଭକ୍ତି evokes Vaishnav devotional surrender; ଜ୍ଞାନ evokes jñāna-mārga (the knowledge-path to moksha); ସଂଯମ evokes ascetic tapasyā. No single Odia word-family for this chain is doctrinally “clean.” | Qualify systematically rather than seek nonexistent unambiguous roots: ସଦ୍ (good) + ଗୁଣ, ଈଶ୍ୱର + ଭକ୍ତି, ପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ + ଜ୍ଞାନ. Reinforce with catechetical framing (these are Spirit-given graces added to faith already granted, not self-earned merit or ascetic technique) at first occurrence in each lesson unit, not just once in the letter. |
| False Teachers and Their Judgment | ଭଣ୍ଡ ଶିକ୍ଷକ (false teacher), ଭଣ୍ଡ ଭବିଷ୍ୟଦ୍ବକ୍ତା (false prophet), ବିନାଶକାରୀ ମତବାଦ (heresy/destructive teaching), ସାର୍ବଭୌମ ପ୍ରଭୁ (despotēs), କ୍ରୟ କରିଥିଲେ (purchased) | Odia has no single native word for “heresy” as a theological category (unlike caste/sect divisions, which have their own vocabulary: ସମ୍ପ୍ରଦାୟ, ପନ୍ଥ — both too neutral/descriptive, lacking the moral condemnation Peter intends). δεσπότης has two dangerous native “false friends”: ସ୍ୱାମୀ (ascetic/guru honorific) and ମହାପ୍ରଭୁ (title of Chaitanya Mahāprabhu). | Render “heresy” descriptively (ବିନାଶକାରୀ ମତବାଦ) rather than borrowing ସମ୍ପ୍ରଦାୟ/ପନ୍ଥ, which would flatten it into a neutral denominational label. For δεσπότης, build compositionally on the already-safe ପ୍ରଭୁ (ସାର୍ବଭୌମ ପ୍ରଭୁ) rather than reaching for either forbidden native honorific. |
| The Certainty of Christ’s Return | ପୁନରାଗମନ (parousia), ପ୍ରତ୍ୟକ୍ଷଦର୍ଶୀ (eyewitness), ମହାନତା (majesty), ଉଦୟ ତାରା (morning star), ପରିହାସକାରୀ (scoffer) | ପୁନରାଗମନ (lit. “return-coming”) is transparent but risks assimilation to two live regional patterns: (a) Vaishnav dashavatara theology’s repeated divine descents, of which Jagannath is popularly counted a form; (b) Rath Yatra’s annual chariot procession, in which the deity makes a temporary journey out of and back into the sanctum. Both offer the audience a ready but wrong interpretive frame: “coming again” as one more cyclical episode. | Retain ପୁନରାଗମନ but pair consistently with modifiers such as ଏକ ମାତ୍ର ଓ ଚୂଡ଼ାନ୍ତ (one and final) in teaching material, and explicitly flag Rath Yatra and avatara imagery as unsuitable illustrations in any accompanying commentary, per the baseline’s existing Rath Yatra caution (extended here from Christ’s kingship generally to the parousia specifically). |
| The Day of the Lord and Final Judgment | ପ୍ରଭୁଙ୍କ ଦିନ (Day of the Lord), ବିଚାର/ଦଣ୍ଡ (judgment), ମହାପ୍ଳାବନ (Flood), ନୂତନ ଆକାଶ ଓ ନୂତନ ପୃଥିବୀ (new heavens and new earth), ତାର୍ତାରସ୍ (Tartarus) | Odia cosmological vocabulary is dominated by cyclical-time concepts: ପ୍ରଳୟ (periodic cosmic dissolution at the end of a kalpa), ଯୁଗ (recurring cosmic ages), and a multi-tiered, karma-graded ନରକ system with implicit eventual release. Each of these is a ready “false friend” for the letter’s linear, one-time, final judgment/renewal vocabulary. | Systematically avoid ପ୍ରଳୟ (already excluded for “Flood,” must also be avoided for “Day of the Lord” and “new heavens/new earth” throughout). Avoid bare ନରକ for Tartarus; transliterate with descriptive qualifier. Reinforce linearity (“once,” “final,” “ଚୂଡ଼ାନ୍ତ”) at every occurrence of these terms, since the cyclical framework is the single most available competing mental model in the target culture. |
| Patience of God’s Timing | ପରମେଶ୍ୱରଙ୍କ ସହନଶୀଳତା (God’s patience), ମନ ପରିବର୍ତ୍ତନ (repentance) | Odia everyday explanatory vocabulary for “why is this delayed” defaults to ଭାଗ୍ୟ (fate) or the impersonal ripening logic of karma; repentance risks conflation with ପ୍ରାୟଶ୍ଚିତ୍ତ, a ritual-transactional practice of discharging karmic guilt through prescribed acts. | Keep the personal-possessive compound (ପରମେଶ୍ୱରଙ୍କ ସହନଶୀଳତା, “God’s own patience”) rather than an abstract noun alone, to keep the agent personal and explicit. Keep ମନ ପରିବର୍ତ୍ତନ (“change of mind/heart”) rather than any ପ୍ରାୟଶ୍ଚିତ୍ତ-adjacent phrase, and pair with teaching notes contrasting God’s initiating patience against karma-ripening explanations of delay. |
| Divine Nature and Escaping Corruption | ଈଶ୍ୱରୀୟ ପ୍ରକୃତିର ସହଭାଗୀ (partaker of divine nature), ଭ୍ରଷ୍ଟତା (corruption), ମନ୍ଦ ଅଭିଲାଷା (disordered desire) | This is the single highest-risk doctrine in the letter linguistically. Odia religious vocabulary offers at least three live, well-developed native frameworks that could each swallow “partakers of the divine nature”: (a) Advaita Vedanta’s ātman-Brahman identity (soul’s ultimate oneness with the impersonal Absolute); (b) Gaudiya Vaishnava prema-bhakti’s aspiration toward ecstatic absorption into Krishna/Jagannath; (c) the baseline’s own already-flagged Nabakalebara imagery of periodic divine re-embodiment (the reverse risk: not the deity taking a body, but the devotee becoming divine). No existing Odia phrase is free of at least one of these associations. | No single term suffices; retain the descriptive phrase ଈଶ୍ୱରୀୟ ପ୍ରକୃତିର ସହଭାଗୀ (“sharer/participant in the divine nature”) rather than any single compact noun, and mandate a theologian-authored explanatory note at every occurrence (not just the first), per Section D.4 of the core glossary. This is the one doctrine in the letter where paraphrase-with-note is structurally required rather than optional. |
2. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods
2.1 Missing Vocabulary (no natural Odia lexical equivalent — requires coining, compounding, or descriptive paraphrase)
| Concept | Gap | Resolution Applied |
|---|---|---|
| ἐπίγνωσις vs. γνῶσις distinction | Odia does not lexically distinguish “full/precise relational knowledge” from “general knowledge” the way Greek does; a single word ଜ୍ଞାନ would flatten Peter’s own intentional distinction (epignōsis at conversion/growth milestones; gnōsis within the virtue chain). | Compound ପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ଜ୍ଞାନ for ἐπίγνωσις, bare ଜ୍ଞାନ reserved for γνῶσις — an artificial but necessary and consistent distinction that must be maintained across all lesson materials, not just within single verses. |
| δεσπότης vs. κύριος distinction | Odia ପ୍ରଭୁ is already fixed for κύριος; Greek’s δεσπότης is deliberately a stronger term (absolute ownership/mastery) and Peter’s choice of it in 2:1 is rhetorically significant (those who deny the one who owns them by right of purchase). No unused, safe, stronger native word exists (ସ୍ୱାମୀ and ମହାପ୍ରଭୁ both forbidden; see Section 3). | Coin a qualified compound: ସାର୍ବଭୌମ ପ୍ରଭୁ (“sovereign/absolute Lord”), preserving intensification without reaching for a forbidden honorific. |
| αἵρεσις (“heresy” as theological category) | No native Odia noun names “doctrinally destructive faction” as opposed to a neutral religious “sect” (ସମ୍ପ୍ରଦାୟ) or “path/school” (ପନ୍ଥ), both value-neutral in ordinary Odia religious discourse. | Paraphrase: ବିନାଶକାରୀ ମତବାଦ (“destructive doctrine/opinion”) rather than a borrowed neutral-sect noun. |
| θεία φύσις (“divine nature,” as a participatory, non-merging concept) | No existing Odia phrase names moral/relational participation in God’s character while explicitly excluding ontological identity/merger — every ready phrase in the religious lexicon (ଐକ୍ୟ, ମିଳନ, ତାଦାତ୍ମ୍ୟ — “union,” “merging,” “identity-with”) carries merger connotations. | Retain multi-word descriptive phrase ଈଶ୍ୱରୀୟ ପ୍ରକୃତିର ସହଭାଗୀ (using ସହଭାଗୀ, “sharer/co-participant,” rather than any union/merger-root word) plus mandatory theologian note. |
| Τάρταρος (a term-specific mythological place-name with no Jewish/OT or native equivalent) | Neither Hebrew Sheol-vocabulary nor Odia ନରକ maps cleanly onto Peter’s borrowed-from-Greek-myth technical term for a temporary, pre-final-judgment holding place. | Transliterate (ତାର୍ତାରସ୍) with a bracketed descriptive gloss (“ଅନ୍ଧକାରମୟ ବନ୍ଦୀଗୃହ,” a dark place of confinement) rather than substituting the native, differently-structured ନରକ concept. |
2.2 Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods (existing Odia words available but dangerously overlapping — require fencing)
| Odia Word/Root | Competing Native Association | Fencing Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| ଭକ୍ତି (root in ଈଶ୍ୱରଭକ୍ତି) | Odia Vaishnav devotional surrender toward Jagannath/Krishna; the same collision the baseline already documents for ବିଶ୍ୱାସ (faith). | Compound with ଈଶ୍ୱର (God) rather than leaving ଭକ୍ତି bare; reinforce in teaching notes that this names godward reverence expressed in conduct, not devotional-emotional surrender to a specific deity-image. |
| ଗୁଣ (root in ସଦ୍ଗୁଣ) | Sāṅkhya philosophy’s three guṇas (sattva/rajas/tamas) — material qualities binding the soul to the rebirth cycle, to be transcended rather than cultivated. | Qualifier ସଦ୍- (good/true) narrows the sense but does not remove the association entirely; treat as reduced-risk (Medium), not eliminated-risk, and avoid bare ଗୁଣ anywhere in 2 Peter lesson material. |
| ଜ୍ଞାନ | jñāna-mārga, the “path of knowledge” toward moksha through self-realizing mystical insight dissolving the knower’s separate identity. | Keep visually and functionally distinct from ପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ଜ୍ଞାନ (see 2.1 above); never gloss either as a “path” or “realization,” always as growing relational understanding of a historical Person. |
| ସ୍ୱାମୀ | Standard honorific for Hindu ascetics/gurus (e.g., “Swami Vivekananda”); would recast Christ as one teacher-ascetic among many rather than absolute owner-Master. | Forbidden for δεσπότης; use ସାର୍ବଭୌମ ପ୍ରଭୁ instead (see 2.1). |
| ମହାପ୍ରଭୁ | Specific title of Śrī Chaitanya Mahāprabhu, founder of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, deeply rooted across Eastern India including Odisha. | Forbidden for δεσπότης; same resolution as above. |
| ପ୍ରଳୟ | Technical Hindu-cosmology term for periodic, cyclical universal dissolution at the close of a kalpa. | Forbidden for “Flood,” “Day of the Lord,” and “new heavens and new earth” alike; use ମହାପ୍ଳାବନ, ପ୍ରଭୁଙ୍କ ଦିନ, and ନୂତନ ଆକାଶ ଓ ନୂତନ ପୃଥିବୀ respectively, each reinforced as singular/linear/final. |
| ନରକ (bare, unqualified) | Multi-tiered, karma-graded hell-realm cosmology with implicit possibility of eventual release after due karmic payment. | Never use bare for Tartarus or for any final-judgment destination language in 2 Peter; qualify or transliterate as needed. |
| ଦାସ | Common devotional self-designation/name-suffix in Odia Vaishnavism (e.g., “Jagannath Das,” one of the Panchasakha). | Not forbidden (retained per glossary) but requires context to always specify whose dāsa — Christ’s (1:1, positive) vs. corruption’s (2:19, negative) — never left to imply a guru- or deity-devotee relationship of the regional devotional type. |
| ସତ୍ୟ | Cardinal Hindu ethical/cosmic virtue (cf. Satyagraha); a principle realized through ascetic/moral effort or cosmic order (ṛta-adjacent). | Retain (no better alternative exists) but frame explicitly in teaching notes as the fixed, already-revealed content of the apostolic gospel message, not an abstract principle attained through discipline. |
| ପ୍ରଜ୍ଞା | Technical Buddhist/Vedantic term for liberating meditative insight. | Retain (no better alternative exists) but frame as God-given practical wisdom evident in apostolic writing, not mystical-liberating insight attained through practice. |
| ଭ୍ରାନ୍ତି | Advaita Vedanta’s term for the fundamental cognitive illusion (māyā-adjacent) underlying all ordinary perception of the phenomenal world. | Retain but frame as a specific, resistible moral/doctrinal error (following false teachers), never as a built-in, universal feature of perception to be transcended. |
| ପ୍ରାୟଶ୍ଚିତ୍ତ | Ritual practice of performing prescribed acts to discharge the karmic consequence of a specific wrongdoing. | Excluded for μετάνοια/repentance; use ମନ ପରିବର୍ତ୍ତନ instead, reinforced as inward reorientation, not ritual transaction. |
| ଠାକୁର / ମହାପ୍ରଭୁ / ସ୍ୱାମୀ (as a cluster) | All three are live, named, or role-specific religious honorifics in Odisha’s devotional landscape (Jagannath’s everyday name; Chaitanya’s title; the generic guru/ascetic honorific). | This letter’s repeated “Lord and Savior” and new “Sovereign Lord” formulas make this cluster the single densest collision-zone in 2 Peter; enforce ପ୍ରଭୁ / ସାର୍ବଭୌମ ପ୍ରଭୁ absolutely, with validation-rule coverage extended to catch all three forbidden words, not just ଠାକୁର as in the Romans baseline. |
3. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions
| Term | Decision | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| παρουσία (parousia) | Descriptive Odia compound (ପୁନରାଗମନ), not transliteration | An Odia compound (“return-coming”) is transparent to readers and avoids introducing an unfamiliar Greek loanword; risk is managed through qualifying language, not through transliteration. |
| σωτήρ (savior) | Descriptive Odia compound (ତ୍ରାଣକର୍ତ୍ତା), not transliteration | Builds on the already-fixed ପରିତ୍ରାଣ root for cross-document consistency; a Greek loanword would break that root-family link. |
| Τάρταρος (Tartarus) | Transliteration + descriptive gloss (ତାର୍ତାରସ୍ + “ଅନ୍ଧକାରମୟ ବନ୍ଦୀଗୃହ”) | This is a proper place-name specific to Peter’s own borrowed Greek mythological vocabulary with no OT/Hebrew or Odia structural equivalent; forcing it into native ନରକ vocabulary imports an entire incompatible cosmology (graded hells, eventual karmic release). Transliteration preserves its foreignness/specificity while the gloss supplies comprehension. |
| δεσπότης (despotēs) | Compound on existing safe root (ସାର୍ବଭୌମ ପ୍ରଭୁ), not transliteration, not a native honorific | Neither transliteration (would be opaque to readers) nor an existing native honorific (both available options are forbidden, see Section 2.2) serves; compounding on the already-established, safe ପ୍ରଭୁ is the only viable path. |
| Ἀββά (Abba) — baseline precedent, relevant if quoted in cross-reference to Romans 8:15 | Transliteration retained (ଆବ୍ବା), per baseline | Not newly introduced in 2 Peter but cited here as the governing precedent for when transliteration is preferred: an Aramaic term of untranslatable intimacy is transliterated rather than paraphrased. 2 Peter has no directly parallel case; noted for completeness. |
| θεία φύσις (divine nature) | Paraphrase, explicitly not transliteration and not a single compact noun | A transliterated Greek phrase would be opaque to Odia readers and would not itself carry any built-in protection against merger readings; only a carefully worded descriptive phrase plus a mandatory theologian note manages this risk. This is a paraphrase-with-note case, not a transliteration case. |
| μακροθυμία (patience) | Descriptive Odia compound (ପରମେଶ୍ୱରଙ୍କ ସହନଶୀଳତା), not transliteration | The personal-possessive form is essential to the doctrinal point (this is God’s own restraint, not an abstract virtue-name); transliteration would lose the grammatical marking of personal agency entirely. |
| ψευδοδιδάσκαλος / ψευδοπροφήτης (false teacher/prophet) | Native compound with ଭଣ୍ଡ (fraudulent) qualifier, not transliteration | Odia already has the productive ଭଣ୍ଡ-prefix pattern for “fraudulent X” (e.g., ଭଣ୍ଡ ସାଧୁ, “fake holy man,” in general usage); this pattern is natural, well understood, and appropriately pejorative — a Greek loanword would lose the built-in moral judgment the prefix supplies. |
| ἐμπαικτής (scoffer) | Native word (ପରିହାସକାରୀ), not transliteration | Ordinary Odia vocabulary suffices; no ambiguity risk requiring special handling. |
General principle applied: transliteration is reserved for (a) proper names/places with no structural equivalent (Tartarus) and (b) cases the baseline has already established as transliteration-preferred (Abba-type terms of untranslatable intimacy). All doctrinally sensitive common-noun concepts are handled through compounding/qualifying existing safe Odia roots rather than through loanwords, because loanwords in this context tend to remain opaque to the target reading-level audience (Class 8–10 Odia proficiency per the AI Translation Requirements) without actually neutralizing the underlying doctrinal risk.
4. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities in 2 Peter
Ranked by combined severity (doctrinal centrality × strength of competing native association × frequency/prominence in the letter):
-
“Partakers of the divine nature” (θεία φύσις, 1:4) — Critical. Triple collision risk (Advaita ātman-Brahman identity; Gaudiya Vaishnava ecstatic absorption into Krishna/Jagannath; reverse-Nabakalebara “human becoming divine” reading). No clean single-term solution exists in Odia. Highest-priority doctrine in the entire letter for translator/reviewer attention.
-
δεσπότης “Sovereign Lord/Master” (2:1) — Critical. Two independently dangerous, well-established native honorifics (ସ୍ୱାମୀ, ମହାପ୍ରଭୁ) sit directly in the natural-translation path; either would misname Christ using a title belonging to a Hindu ascetic tradition or to a specific historical Gaudiya Vaishnava founder-figure.
-
παρουσία “return/coming” (1:16; 3:4, 12) intersecting with Rath Yatra and dashavatara imagery — Critical. Unlike most terms on this list, the risk here is less about word-choice and more about illustration: preachers/teachers reaching for a locally vivid image of “a god returning” will very naturally reach for Rath Yatra’s chariot-procession or the avatara-descent sequence, both of which invert the letter’s own point (a single, final, decisive return vs. a temporary or repeated one).
-
“Day of the Lord” / “new heavens and new earth” vs. ପ୍ରଳୟ-and-cyclical-renewal cosmology (3:10, 13) — Critical. Odia readers’ most available background cosmological model (yugas, kalpas, periodic pralaya-and-recreation) is structurally cyclical; the letter’s linear, once-for-all judgment-and-renewal claim runs directly against the grain of that available mental model, more than against any single word choice.
-
ἐπίγνωσις vs. γνῶσις distinction (1:2–3, 5–6, 8; 2:20; 3:18) intersecting with jñāna-mārga — High. The letter itself relies on a fine internal distinction between two knowledge-terms that Odia has no ready lexical pair for, compounded by both terms’ independent overlap with the Hindu knowledge-path to liberation.
-
εὐσέβεια “godliness” (1:3, 6, 7; 3:11) intersecting with bhakti — High. A structurally central, four-times-repeated keyword built on the same bhakti root already flagged as High-risk for “faith” in the Romans baseline; repetition across the letter multiplies the exposure.
-
Τάρταρος (2:4) vs. graded, karma-linked ନରକ cosmology — High. A single-occurrence term, but the native “obvious” translation (bare ନରକ) imports an entire incompatible afterlife system with built-in eventual release, directly undercutting the point that this confinement is a fixed, temporary holding-place awaiting one final Day.
-
μακροθυμία “God’s patience” (3:9, 15) vs. fate/karma-ripening explanations of delay — High. Central to a doctrine explicitly named in this curriculum (Patience of God’s Timing); Odia everyday speech has strong, ready-made impersonal explanatory frameworks (ଭାଗ୍ୟ, karma-ripening) for “why is judgment delayed” that compete directly with the letter’s personal, purposive framing.
-
αἵρεσις “heresy” (2:1) — lexical gap — Medium-High. No native Odia noun carries the letter’s intended moral-doctrinal condemnation without either sounding like a neutral denominational label (ସମ୍ପ୍ରଦାୟ/ପନ୍ଥ) or requiring an entirely descriptive phrase.
-
ἐλευθερία “freedom” as false promise (2:19) vs. the doubly-forbidden ମୋକ୍ଷ/ମୁକ୍ତି — Medium. Lower risk than the above because the baseline’s existing prohibition already rules out the most dangerous renderings; remaining risk is narrower — ensuring translators do not unconsciously reach for release-vocabulary to make the false teachers’ promise sound more attractive/idiomatic than Peter intends.
-
ἀρετή “virtue” (1:3, 5) vs. Sāṅkhya guṇa-theory — Medium. Partially mitigated by the ସଦ୍- qualifier already adopted; retained on this list because the virtue chain is structurally central to the letter’s exhortation (1:5–7) and recurs across every lesson unit built on it.
-
γραφή “Scripture” (1:20; 3:16) vs. the Panchasakha śāstra corpus — Medium. Mitigated by the mandatory ପବିତ୍ର qualifier, but the risk persists at a cultural rather than purely lexical level: Jagannath Das’s Odia Bhagavata occupies a genuinely similar social role (revered, vernacular, read aloud communally) even though it does not claim the same divine-origin status, making the distinction one the audience must be actively taught rather than one the word choice alone secures.
5. Summary Recommendation for Phase 2
- No doctrine in this letter is vocabulary-neutral; all seven assigned doctrines carry at least Medium risk, and three (Reliability/Inspiration of Scripture, Divine Nature and Escaping Corruption, Day of the Lord/Final Judgment) carry Critical-tier collision risk requiring mandatory human theologian review at every occurrence, consistent with
12_ai_translation_requirements.md’s escalation rules. - The single highest-priority action item for Phase 2 is the mandatory explanatory note on every occurrence of θεία φύσις (1:4) — this is the one place in the letter where paraphrase-plus-note is structurally required rather than a fallback.
- The δεσπότης naming risk (2:1) should be added to the AI Translation Requirements’ CRITICAL FORBIDDEN SUBSTITUTIONS list (ସ୍ୱାମୀ, ମହାପ୍ରଭୁ) in the same style as the existing ଠାକୁର prohibition, since it is structurally identical in kind though distinct in the specific words at risk.
- Teaching/commentary materials accompanying this curriculum should explicitly flag Rath Yatra and avatara-descent imagery as unsuitable illustrations for the parousia (extending, not duplicating, the baseline’s existing Rath Yatra caution for kingdom-of-God imagery), and should flag cyclical yuga/kalpa/pralaya cosmology as the default competing mental model for the Day of the Lord and new-creation material in chapter 3.