Linguistic Gap Analysis
Linguistic Gap Analysis — 1 Thessalonians (English–Polish)
Purpose and Scope
This analysis identifies where the Polish language possesses, lacks, or over-supplies vocabulary for 1 Thessalonians’ theological content, and prescribes strategies (reuse, new coinage, fencing, transliteration, paraphrase) for Phase 2 translation. It extends, and does not contradict, the baseline Romans Language Package for Polish (translation_memory.json, bible_term_registry.json, doctrine_risk_registry.json) and is built on 07_semantic_analysis.md and 08_core_glossary.md. Coverage spans the entire letter, chapters 1–5, with the core passage (4:13–18) as theological anchor, not scope boundary.
This letter differs from Romans in kind: Romans is doctrinally dense and forensic; 1 Thessalonians is pastoral, eschatological, and image-driven. Consequently the gap analysis here surfaces a different risk profile — fewer forensic-soteriology collisions (already resolved by baseline reuse), and more eschatological-imagery collisions and register mismatches (comfort vs. exhortation; euphemism vs. literal claim).
Part A. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix
For each of the five curriculum doctrines: the available Polish vocabulary, its structural weaknesses/collision risks, and the recommended handling strategy.
1. The Return of Christ
| Available Polish terms | Weaknesses / Collision Risks | Recommended Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| przyjście (Pana/Chrystusa) | Generic “coming”; alone lacks technical precision and may read as merely one of several “comings” (incarnation, providential visitation) rather than the single climactic event. | Use as primary running-text rendering, always with a possessive/genitive anchor (“przyjście Pana,” “przyjście Chrystusa”) — never bare “przyjście.” |
| paruzja | Transliterated technical term, shared by Catholic and Polish Protestant academic theology — a rare point of convergence. Risk: unfamiliar to lay readers outside catechetical/seminary contexts; may read as jargon if introduced without gloss. | Introduce explicitly once per lesson as the technical name for “przyjście Pana,” then may be used more freely; always pair with the passage’s comfort function (4:18), not only its cosmic-judgment function, to counteract the cultural default of associating end-time doctrine chiefly with particular judgment/purgatory. |
| archanioł, trąba Boża | Standard, unambiguous, no collision. | Reuse directly (Low risk), no fencing required. |
| zstąpi (z nieba) | Standard verb; low risk, but should not be reduced to a vague “will appear” — retain directional, visible, personal descent. | Preserve literal directional force (“zstąpi z nieba”) rather than abstracting to “ukaże się.” |
| spotkanie / na powitanie (ἀπάντησις) | Standard Polish Bible renderings (“wyjdziemy na obłokach naprzeciw Pana”) flatten the Hellenistic technical sense of citizens formally processing out to escort an arriving dignitary/king into the city. Losing this image weakens the passage’s comfort-logic (we go out to escort Him in, not to be swept away from the world). | Restore the royal-welcome-escort connotation in teaching notes accompanying every occurrence of 4:17; this reframing also functions as the primary mitigation for the “porwani” collision (see Part D, #1). |
| wieniec chwały (crown of rejoicing, 2:19) | Athletic-victor imagery risks conflation with Polish royal/national “korona” symbolism (crown as sovereignty, not victory-wreath). | Retain “wieniec” (wreath), not “korona” (crown), to preserve the athletic/relational image Paul intends. |
Overall doctrine risk: Critical. Flagship collision: the “porwani” translation of 4:17 (see Part D). Requires human theologian review routing for every occurrence per the escalation model established in the baseline.
2. Resurrection of Believers
| Available Polish terms | Weaknesses / Collision Risks | Recommended Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| zmartwychwstanie (word family: zmartwychwstał, zmartwychwstaną, powstał z martwych) | [TM — REUSE EXACTLY] from baseline. No lexical collision; risk is purely catechetical — must retain bodily, historical, once-for-all resurrection matching Christ’s own, not a spiritualized or repeatable rising. | Reuse baseline term exactly in every occurrence (4:14, 16). No new coinage needed. |
| zaśnięcie / zasnąć (o śmierci) — death euphemism (κοιμάομαι) | Polish possesses a natural euphemistic register for death-as-sleep (“zasnął w Panu,” “spoczywa,” “śpi snem wiecznym”) already familiar from funeral liturgy and epitaphs — a genuine linguistic asset. Risk: this same register is theologically exploited by Jehovah’s Witness teaching (materialist “soul sleep,” no conscious intermediate state), active and visible in Poland. Readers may import that doctrinal framework onto Paul’s euphemism. | Use “zasnęli / zaśnięcie” but pair every occurrence (4:13,14,15) with an explicit note: this is a euphemism for death implying a future bodily waking, not a claim about the soul’s unconscious state between death and resurrection. |
| umarli w Chrystusie (“the dead in Christ”) | No lexical gap; risk is doctrinal — “w Chrystusie” must retain the union-with-Christ force established already in Romans 6/8, not be flattened to “Christian dead” as a mere sociological label. | Reuse Romans’ “w Chrystusie” register; do not substitute “chrześcijańscy zmarli.” |
Overall doctrine risk: Critical. Reuse of baseline “zmartwychwstanie” is straightforward; the genuine gap is catechetical guarding against soul-sleep, not lexical shortage.
3. Sanctification
| Available Polish terms | Weaknesses / Collision Risks | Recommended Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| uświęcenie (ἁγιασμός) | [TM — REUSE EXACTLY]. Central risk (per baseline) is collapse into the Catholic penitential/purgatorial framework where holiness is completed through post-mortem purification (czyściec). This letter’s climax at 5:23 (“sanctify you wholly… spirit, soul, body… blameless”) intensifies this risk because it asserts this-life, God-accomplished completeness pointing toward the Parousia, not an unfinished process requiring post-mortem completion. | Reuse exactly; attach a mandatory teaching note at every 5:23-adjacent occurrence distinguishing God’s decisive sanctifying action from a purgatorial completion narrative. |
| świętość (ἁγιωσύνη, 3:13) | Distinct Greek noun from ἁγιασμός; Polish has no equally distinct native pair — both terms plausibly gloss to “świętość” if not carefully distinguished, creating a crowded neighborhood (see Part B). | Reserve “świętość” for ἁγιωσύνη (abstract quality) and “uświęcenie” for ἁγιασμός (the Spirit’s ongoing action); record both separately in translation memory so Phase 2 workers do not flatten them. |
| poświęcić całkowicie / w całości (ὁλοτελεῖς, 5:23) | No single Polish adverb captures “wholly/entirely” with the same rhetorical force as the Greek compound; risk of either under-translating (losing completeness) or over-translating (implying instantaneous perfection contradicting the letter’s own ongoing-growth language, e.g., 4:1, “more and more”). | Use a doubled phrase (“całkowicie, w każdym względzie”) if needed for emphasis; teaching note must reconcile with 4:1’s incremental growth language — completeness of aim/certainty, not denial of ongoing process. |
| nierząd/rozpusta (πορνεία), pożądliwość (ἐπιθυμία), naczynie/własne ciało (σκεῦος), krzywdzić (πλεονεκτέω) | Standard moral vocabulary shared across Polish Catholic and Protestant tradition; low collision risk. Genuine ambiguity only in σκεῦος (body vs. wife). | Reuse standard renderings; record “własna żona” as alternatives_considered for σκεῦος per Ambiguity Handling protocol, preferring “własne ciało.” |
| naśladowcy (μιμηταί) | Positive resonance with Polish devotional tradition “naśladowanie Chrystusa” (Thomas à Kempis) — a rare helpful bridge, not a gap. | Reuse freely; may even lean into the devotional resonance in teaching notes. |
| czuwać / być trzeźwym (γρηγορέω/νήφω) | Polish has strong idiomatic resources for both “watching” and “sobriety,” but the metaphor’s literal sobriety sense intersects with Poland’s well-documented cultural relationship with alcohol, risking either an over-literal temperance message or an under-literal loss of the vivid image. | Preserve both senses explicitly in teaching notes: spiritual alertness (main sense) grounded in, not replaced by, the literal-sobriety image. |
| upominać (νουθετέω, 5:14) vs. napominać (παρακαλέω-urging, 4:1) | Genuine gap risk: Polish has two closely related verbs that could easily be conflated by translators working quickly, flattening two distinct Greek verbs (correction vs. entreaty) into one Polish gloss. | Record as separate translation-memory entries; enforce “upominać” only for νουθετέω and “napominać” only for παρακαλέω-urging. |
Overall doctrine risk: High. Reuse of “uświęcenie” is settled; the analytical gap is fencing “uświęcenie” from “świętość” and guarding 5:23 against purgatorial misreading.
4. Hope in Grief
| Available Polish terms | Weaknesses / Collision Risks | Recommended Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| nadzieja (ἐλπίς) | [NEW — High risk, confirmed]. Polish “nadzieja” is lexically adequate but culturally overloaded: national-religious memory (partitions, WWII, communist rule, Solidarność-era endurance) has shaped “nadzieja” as collective historical perseverance against oppression, reinforced by patriotic hymns and Romantic-era poetry (Mickiewicz, Słowacki) taught in every Polish school. This is a genuine semantic gap: the object of hope in 1 Thessalonians is a specific, datable, bodily-resurrection-grounded event (4:14), not a diffuse historical-endurance sentiment. | Always anchor “nadzieja” explicitly to Christ’s resurrection as its ground (4:14) and to the Parousia as its content (4:13-18; 5:8) in surrounding teaching text; never allow “nadzieja” to stand alone without its object recoverable from context. |
| smutek / smucić się (λυπέω) | No lexical gap — Polish has abundant grief vocabulary. The risk is cultural over-supply: Polish Catholic funeral culture (żałoba, requiem Mass, Dzień Zaduszny/All Souls’ candles, extended mourning customs) is deeply, richly ritualized, which could cause the text’s “do not grieve as others who have no hope” to be misheard as prohibiting these cultural practices altogether. | Teaching note must clarify Paul reframes grief’s character (with hope) rather than eliminating legitimate cultural mourning practice; do not render as an absolute prohibition of grief. |
| ucisk (θλῖψις) | Genuine gap-adjacent risk: this word sits directly atop Poland’s own powerful historical-suffering narrative, which — per the baseline’s own findings on “Polak-katolik” — is already fused with religious-national identity. “Ucisk” could be read through that national lens rather than the text’s gospel-specific, persecution-for-Christ’s-sake sense. | Explicitly tie “ucisk” to gospel proclamation and Christ-directed suffering (1:6; 2:14; 3:3-4,7), not generalized national historical suffering. |
| pocieszajcie (comfort-sense παρακαλέω, 4:18; 5:11,14) | [NEW — High risk, confirmed]. Genuine structural gap: the baseline’s Romans-derived translation-memory entry for this Greek root (“napominać”) encodes only the entreaty/urging sense. Applying it mechanically to 4:18 — this letter’s pastoral hinge verse — would replace comfort with exhortation, inverting the verse’s function. | Record as a distinct context-sensitive sub-entry keyed to the comfort/consolation sense; never default to “napominać” in 4:18, 5:11, or 5:14 (comfort clause). |
Overall doctrine risk: High. No true vocabulary absence, but severe cultural-connotation drift risk on “nadzieja,” and a structural risk of misapplying a Romans-registered gloss (“napominać”) to a different Greek sense-register active in this letter.
5. The Day of the Lord
| Available Polish terms | Weaknesses / Collision Risks | Recommended Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| dzień Pański (ἡμέρα κυρίου) | [NEW — CRITICAL, flagship risk]. This is the single highest-risk lexical item in the entire curriculum. “Dzień Pański” is the standard, universally recognized Polish Catholic idiom for Sunday, reinforced by liturgical calendars, homiletic vocabulary, and Catholic media/publications using this exact phrase as a title. There is no alternative standard Bible rendering available without departing from established translation tradition — this is a true “no safe term” gap, not solvable by lexical substitution alone. | Retain “dzień Pański” (do not invent a substitute term that would break consistency with other Polish Bible translations) but mandate an explicit disambiguation note at every occurrence (5:2, 5:4) distinguishing the eschatological Day of Judgment from the weekly liturgical Sunday. This is a fencing problem, not a vocabulary problem. |
| gniew Boży (ὀργή) | [TM — REUSE EXACTLY] for sense; risk is register-flattening — everyday Polish “gniew” implies transient human emotion/temper, whereas the text requires settled judicial, eschatological anger. | Reuse baseline term; teaching note must reinforce judicial/eschatological force over casual-anger connotation. |
| synowie światłości / synowie dnia (υἱοὶ φωτός/ἡμέρας) | Standard, low risk; “synowie” (sons) requires the standard Polish Bible-translation convention of inclusive reading already established in the baseline’s gender-language guidance. | Reuse directly per baseline gender-language convention; no additional fencing needed beyond that already established. |
| złodziej w nocy (thief in the night, 5:2) | No gap; vivid, well-understood image in Polish as in English. | Reuse directly. |
| napierśnik / hełm (armor imagery, 5:8) | No lexical gap; positive resonance with Poland’s historical-military cultural memory (national defense narratives) is an asset if not overextended into nationalizing the image. | Reuse directly; teaching note should redirect any nationalist resonance back to the individual believer’s spiritual equipping. |
Overall doctrine risk: Critical. The “dzień Pański” collision is structurally unresolvable at the lexical level and must be managed entirely through mandatory disambiguation notes — the defining case for this curriculum of a doctrine risk that vocabulary choice alone cannot fix.
Part B. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods
B.1 Missing Vocabulary (true gaps — no adequate existing Polish term)
| English concept | Gap description | Resolution |
|---|---|---|
| ἀπάντησις (apantēsis) — technical “formal escort of an arriving dignitary” | Polish has no single word carrying this Hellenistic civic-ceremonial sense; standard renderings default to a generic “meeting” (spotkanie), losing the royal-welcome connotation entirely. | Not resolvable by a single word; resolve through explanatory teaching-note paraphrase attached to “na powitanie” — a paraphrase-compensation strategy, not a lexical fix. |
| παρουσία as simultaneously technical-comic-event and pastoral-comfort category | ”Paruzja” captures the technical sense but carries no built-in comfort connotation; “przyjście” carries warmth but no technical precision. Neither single Polish word does both jobs the Greek term does across 1 Thessalonians’ four occurrences. | Split-term strategy already adopted (przyjście for running text / paruzja for technical anchor); no further gap-filling needed beyond consistent dual-use discipline. |
| ὁλοτελεῖς (holoteleis) — “wholly, in every part, through and through” | No single Polish adverb matches this compound’s rhetorical completeness without either under- or overstating. | Use doubled/expanded phrase; treat as inherent translation loss requiring compensatory teaching note (see Part A.3). |
B.2 Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods (multiple Greek concepts collapsing onto one Polish term family) — require deliberate fencing
| Polish term family | Greek concepts competing for it | Fencing required |
|---|---|---|
| świętość / uświęcenie / święty / święci | ἁγιωσύνη (holiness quality, 3:13), ἁγιασμός (sanctification process, 4:3-4,7; 5:23), ἅγιος (holy, adjective, throughout), ἅγιοι (saints, corporate designation, 3:13) | Four distinct Greek items must not flatten into one interchangeable Polish “święty-” root usage. Maintain baseline’s fixed mapping: ἅγιος→“święty,” ἅγιοι→“święci” (with mandatory all-believers note), ἁγιασμός→“uświęcenie,” ἁγιωσύνη→“świętość.” Record all four as separate, cross-referenced translation-memory entries. |
| napominać / upominać / pocieszajcie (the παρακαλέω/νουθετέω word-cluster) | παρακαλέω-urging (4:1) vs. παρακαλέω-comfort (4:18; 5:11,14) vs. νουθετέω-correction (5:14) | Three distinct pastoral verbs/senses risk collapsing into a single generic “encourage” gloss if translators are not forced to check sense-context per occurrence. Maintain three separate translation-memory entries keyed by Greek form + sense, not by a single shared English gloss “exhort/encourage.” |
| nadzieja | ἐλπίς (theological hope, 1:3; 4:13; 5:8) vs. the everyday Polish cultural-patriotic sense of “nadzieja” (historical endurance) | Not a Greek-to-Greek collision but a biblical-term vs. cultural-connotation collision — the same Polish word is “crowded” by an entirely extra-biblical semantic field. Fence by always supplying the explicit resurrection-grounded object of hope in context (see Part A.4). |
| przyjście | Used generically in Polish for any “coming” (Christ’s incarnation-coming, a person’s arrival, a season’s arrival) as well as the technical Parousia sense | Fence by pairing “przyjście” with an explicit possessive (“Pana,” “Chrystusa”) and, in first occurrence per lesson, cross-reference to “paruzja” as the technical name, so learners do not read the term as one arrival among many. |
| dzień Pański | Eschatological Day of the Lord (5:2,4) vs. the entrenched liturgical-idiomatic sense “Sunday” | The single most crowded neighborhood in this letter — see Part A.5 and Part D.2. Fencing is mandatory at every occurrence, with no lexical alternative available. |
| porwani | Divine, joyful summoning-up of believers (4:17) vs. ordinary Polish “kidnapped/abducted” | See Part D.1 — the most severe fencing requirement in the entire curriculum. |
Part C. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions
| Term | Decision | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| παρουσία | Split strategy: transliterate as “paruzja” for technical/teaching-note use; paraphrase as “przyjście (Pana)” for running biblical text. | Preserves the shared Catholic-Protestant technical convergence while keeping running text warm and comprehensible at newspaper-editorial reading level (per baseline register target). |
| ἁρπάζω (harpazō) | Do not transliterate; do not import the English proper noun “Rapture.” Use the native Polish verb “porwani,” heavily fenced with mandatory teaching notes (see Part D.1). | Transliterating as a loanword (“rapture”/“rapturę”) would import the entire English-language pretribulational-timeline debate apparatus foreign to the Greek text and to Polish theological tradition; a native verb, properly fenced, is closer to Paul’s own plain verb choice. |
| ἀρχάγγελος, σάλπιγξ θεοῦ | Established Polish equivalents (“archanioł,” “trąba Boża”) — no transliteration needed. | Already standard, unambiguous, cross-traditional vocabulary; transliteration would be unnecessary and jarring. |
| Ἀββά (Abba, cf. Romans 8:15 baseline precedent) | Not directly present in 1 Thessalonians but referenced here for consistency: where analogous Aramaic/Hebrew terms arise in teaching cross-references, follow baseline’s transliteration-plus-gloss precedent. | Maintains cross-curriculum consistency per the baseline’s “Theological Consistency Rules Across Documents.” |
| ἁγιωσύνη vs. ἁγιασμός | Paraphrase distinction (“świętość” vs. “uświęcenie”), not transliteration. | Both Greek nouns are abstract theological nouns without transliteration precedent in Polish Bible tradition; paraphrase-distinction is the only viable strategy, per Part B.2 fencing. |
| ἀπάντησις | Paraphrase (“spotkanie / na powitanie”) plus compensatory teaching-note expansion — not transliteration. | No Polish transliteration tradition exists for this term; the concept must be recovered through explanatory paraphrase rather than a borrowed form. |
| σκεῦος | Paraphrase, not transliteration, with the genuine ambiguity flagged and an alternative recorded. | A concrete common noun (“vessel/container”); transliteration is inapplicable. Ambiguity is resolved through majority-rendering selection with alternatives logged, not through borrowing. |
General transliteration policy for this curriculum: transliterate only where (a) an established cross-tradition Polish technical term already exists (paruzja) or (b) the source text itself transliterates a foreign term for the target audience’s benefit (not applicable to any term in 1 Thessalonians itself, unlike Romans 8:15’s “Abba”). Never transliterate to avoid doing the harder work of fencing a native term (as tempting as this might be for ἁρπάζω).
Part D. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities in This Letter
Ranked by combined severity of (1) doctrinal distortion potential and (2) likelihood of occurring given ordinary Polish usage patterns.
1. “Porwani” (ἁρπάζω, 4:17) — CRITICAL, highest-ranked risk in the entire curriculum. The standard Polish rendering is lexically identical to “kidnapped/abducted” in everyday usage, reinforced by decades of Polish news-media crime coverage using the identical word. Left unfenced, this single word risks making the doctrine’s climactic comfort-verse (4:18, “encourage one another with these words”) sound like a description of forcible seizure — the opposite of its intended pastoral effect. Mandatory teaching note required at every occurrence; recommend pairing with the restored ἀπάντησις “royal welcome” image (Part A.1) as the primary interpretive counterweight.
2. “Dzień Pański” (ἡμέρα κυρίου, 5:2, 5:4) — CRITICAL, structurally unresolvable at the lexical level. Identical to the standing Polish Catholic idiom for the weekly Lord’s Day (Sunday), reinforced by liturgical calendars and Catholic media naming conventions. Unlike #1, there is no alternative native term to substitute without breaking established Bible-translation tradition; this must be managed entirely through disambiguation notes at every occurrence, not through lexical substitution.
3. “Nadzieja” cultural-connotation drift (ἐλπίς, 1:3; 4:13; 5:8) — High, pervasive across the letter. Not a single-verse collision but a persistent risk that the letter’s central positive term will be silently reinterpreted through Poland’s national-historical-endurance framing (partitions, WWII, communist era) rather than anchored in the specific, datable fact of Christ’s resurrection. Because “nadzieja” recurs at the letter’s opening (1:3), its doctrinal core (4:13), and its ethical application (5:8), an uncorrected drift here would compromise the entire curriculum’s namesake doctrine (Hope in Grief).
4. “Pocieszajcie” vs. baseline “napominać” mismatch (παρακαλέω, 4:18; 5:11,14) — High, structural cross-document risk. Because the baseline Romans translation memory registers the cognate Greek root only under its urging/entreaty sense, any Phase 2 worker relying mechanically on that entry without consulting this letter’s context-sensitive sub-entry risks converting the letter’s pastoral climax (4:18) into an exhortation-to-obey rather than a word of comfort — inverting the verse’s function at its single most quoted moment.
5. ἁγιωσύνη vs. ἁγιασμός flattening (3:13 vs. 4:3-4,7; 5:23) — Medium-High, quiet but consequential. Less visible than #1–#4 because both Greek words plausibly gloss to the same Polish root family, so a translator error here would not “look wrong” the way “porwani” or “dzień Pański” do — it would simply erase a distinction the text itself makes, weakening the letter’s own internal structure connecting present sanctification (process) to future holiness-at-the-Parousia (state).
6. σκεῦος ambiguity (4:4, “vessel”) — Medium, genuine textual ambiguity rather than translation error risk. Unlike the above, this is a real ambiguity in the Greek itself (“his own body” vs. “his own wife”), not a translation-introduced distortion. Ranked lower because both readings remain within acceptable sanctification-ethics bounds; risk is compounded confusion, not doctrinal corruption, if the alternative is not documented per the Ambiguity Handling protocol.
7. “Zasnęli” soul-sleep misreading (κοιμάομαι, 4:13,14,15) — Medium, apologetics-adjacent risk. Real but narrower in audience than #1–#4: primarily relevant where Jehovah’s Witness teaching has already introduced a materialist reading of “sleep” into a household or community’s theological vocabulary. Requires a teaching note but not the same universal mandatory-flag intensity as #1–#2.
8. “Ucisk” national-suffering conflation (θλῖψις, 1:6; 2:14; 3:3-4,7) — Medium, background risk. Present throughout the letter’s opening chapters but never load-bearing at a single climactic verse the way #1–#4 are; risk is a gradual reframing of gospel-specific affliction into generalized national-historical suffering rather than a single-verse doctrinal collapse.
Part E. Full-Book Chapter Coverage Confirmation
Per the full-book coverage mandate, every chapter of 1 Thessalonians has been reviewed for linguistic-gap content, not only the core passage (4:13-18):
- Chapter 1 — Reviewed. Load-bearing terms: gospel, faith, hope, love, election, power of God, Holy Spirit, affliction, idols, wrath, imitators. All addressed in Part A (doctrines 1, 4, 5) and Part B.2.
- Chapter 2 — Reviewed. Load-bearing terms: apostle, gospel (opposition context), church(es), kingdom of God, glory, crown of rejoicing, Satan, affliction. Addressed in Parts A.1, A.5, B.1 (crown), B.2.
- Chapter 3 — Reviewed. Load-bearing terms: faith, affliction, holiness (ἁγιωσύνη), saints (corporate, with Parousia), Father. Addressed in Parts A.2–A.3, B.2 (świętość/uświęcenie fencing).
- Chapter 4 — Reviewed; contains the core passage and the letter’s highest-risk terms. Sanctification ethics (πορνεία, ἐπιθυμία, σκεῦος, πλεονεκτέω, ἐκδικος, θεοδίδακτος, φιλαδελφία), sleep-death euphemism, resurrection, Parousia, archangel, trumpet, caught up, meeting/apantēsis, comfort. Fully addressed across Parts A.2–A.4, C, D.
- Chapter 5 — Reviewed. Day of the Lord, wrath, sons of light/darkness, watch/sober, armor imagery, admonish the disorderly, quench the Spirit, prophesyings, sanctify wholly, spirit/soul/body, holy kiss, grace (closing). Addressed in Parts A.3, A.5, B.2.
No chapter contributes content requiring gap-analysis treatment beyond what is documented above; all five chapters are accounted for and none are silently omitted.
This analysis extends, and does not contradict, the baseline Romans Language Package for Polish. Section A doctrine mappings and Section D risk rankings are to be carried forward into Phase 1 Step 4 (doctrine risk registry extension) and Phase 1 Step 9 (AI translation requirements) without renumbering or reinterpretation.