Linguistic Gap Analysis
Linguistic Gap Analysis — 2 Corinthians (English → Polish)
Curriculum: 2 Corinthians 1–13
Core passage (theological anchor): 2 Corinthians 5:11–21
Language pair: English → Polish
Inputs consulted: translation_memory.json (Romans baseline, v1), bible_term_registry.json (Romans baseline + 2 Corinthians extension), 08_core_glossary.md (2 Corinthians)
Purpose and Scope
This analysis identifies where Polish lacks a clean one-to-one lexical equivalent for a 2 Corinthians theological concept, where an existing Polish term sits in a “crowded” semantic neighborhood shared with Polish Catholic sacramental or devotional vocabulary, and where transliteration versus paraphrase decisions must be made. It covers all thirteen chapters. Chapters or sub-sections contributing no new gap beyond what the Romans baseline already resolves are noted explicitly rather than omitted (see Section 6). The core passage (5:11–21) receives concentrated treatment because it condenses the letter’s two highest-risk doctrines — Reconciliation with God and New Creation in Christ — into a single dense unit, but it is treated as the anchor for analysis, not the boundary of it.
Section 1 — Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix
For each of the eight named curriculum doctrines: the Polish term(s) available, their lexical/cultural weaknesses, and the recommended mitigation strategy.
1.1 Reconciliation with God
| Available Polish term(s) | Weakness | Recommended strategy |
|---|---|---|
| pojednanie (noun), pojednać się (verb) | Collides with the Sacrament of Reconciliation/Penance (Sakrament pokuty i pojednania) — a near-universal rite among practicing and nominal Polish Catholics, in which a priest mediates absolution after confession | Retain “pojednanie” (no better lexeme exists) but mandate an accompanying teaching note on every occurrence: God is the sole active agent (2 Cor 5:18–19); the human party’s role is receptive (“be reconciled,” 5:20), not sacramental-transactional |
| poczytywać (imputation, λογίζομαι) | No natural weakness, but requires the reader to trace a lexical thread across 5:19 (sin not counted) and 5:21 (righteousness credited) that does not exist as visibly in Polish as in Greek unless the same word-family is deliberately reused | Enforce “poczytać/poczytywać” word-family consistently at both 5:19 and 5:21, matching the Romans baseline’s “poczytana sprawiedliwość” |
| przewinienie (trespass, παράπτωμα) | Near-synonym of grzech; Polish speakers may not register a distinction the Greek intends | Preserve as a distinct lexeme from grzech in 5:19 with a translator note explaining the nuance (“false step” vs. settled transgression), while affirming equal accountability |
Gap: Polish has no non-sacramental synonym for “reconciliation” as clean as “pojednanie” that would sidestep the collision entirely; the gap is resolved by explanatory fencing (Section 3), not lexical substitution.
1.2 New Creation in Christ
| Available Polish term(s) | Weakness | Recommended strategy |
|---|---|---|
| nowe stworzenie | Contemporary secular Polish increasingly uses “nowy ja,” “nowy początek,” or self-help “transformacja” register for personal change; “nowe stworzenie” risks being heard as a stylistic upgrade of the same self-improvement idea | Retain “nowe stworzenie” (established, unambiguous, theologically precise) but require a mandatory explanatory note distinguishing an ontological, Spirit-wrought, already-accomplished change from moral self-improvement or a “fresh start” |
| w Chrystusie (ἐν Χριστῷ, the ground of 5:17) | No lexical weakness; risk is doctrinal-cultural: identity “in Christ” competes with the deeply entrenched “Polak-katolik” inherited-identity framework already flagged Critical in the Romans baseline | Reuse baseline’s Christian Identity in Christ escalation rules verbatim; treat every 2 Cor 5:17 occurrence as triggering the same forbidden-substitution check |
Gap: none lexical; the risk is entirely conceptual/cultural, requiring pairing rather than relexicalization.
1.3 Suffering and Comfort in Ministry
| Available Polish term(s) | Weakness | Recommended strategy |
|---|---|---|
| pociecha / pocieszać (παράκλησις/παρακαλέω, comfort sense) | The same Greek verb παρακαλέω also underlies the baseline’s “napominać” (exhort) and the distinct “prosić/wzywać” (appeal/entreat, 5:20); a translator defaulting to habit from Romans could misapply “napominać” in a 2 Corinthians 1 or 7 comfort context | Disambiguate per occurrence; flag every παρακαλέω instance in chs. 1, 5, 7 for explicit sense-check before defaulting to any one gloss |
| ucisk (affliction, θλῖψις) | No major weakness; standard | Retain as-is |
| Ojciec miłosierdzia (Father of mercies, 1:3) | “Miłosierdzie” is the exact vocabulary of the intensely popular Divine Mercy devotion (Boże Miłosierdzie, St. Faustina, “Jezu, ufam Tobie”); readers may default to that specific devotional frame rather than the letter’s broader affliction-and-comfort theology | Retain the established rendering (it is doctrinally sound) but require explicit teaching that grounds 1:3 in the whole comfort-in-suffering argument of ch. 1 and 4, not the Divine Mercy devotional complex alone |
| słabość (weakness, ἀσθένεια) | Risk of resolving Paul’s paradox in either direction — triumphalist (“strength eventually overcomes weakness”) or fatalist (“weakness is simply endured”) | Preserve the paradoxical “power precisely through weakness, not despite it” logic explicitly in teaching notes at every occurrence (11:30; 12:5,9–10; 13:4,9) |
Gap: none purely lexical; risk is polysemy (παρακαλέω) and devotional-register narrowing (miłosierdzie).
1.4 The New Covenant versus the Old
| Available Polish term(s) | Weakness | Recommended strategy |
|---|---|---|
| nowe przymierze (καινὴ διαθήκη, 3:6) | Overlaps almost verbatim with the Catholic Mass’s consecration wording (“nowe i wieczne przymierze”); readers may hear the phrase as exclusively Eucharistic | Retain — the overlap is a catechetical asset, not a corruption — but require explicit teaching of the full ch. 3 argument (glory, Spirit, freedom, veil) so the phrase is not exhausted by its liturgical association alone |
| litera / Duch (γράμμα/πνεῦμα, 3:6) | Risk of misreading as a general text-vs.-spirit hermeneutic that devalues Scripture’s inspired status | Frame explicitly as a covenant-administration contrast (old covenant’s external code vs. new covenant’s Spirit-empowered inward transformation), consistent with the Romans baseline doctrine “Inspiration of Scripture” |
| zasłona (veil, κάλυμμα, 3:13–16) | Standard; low risk, but the literal (Moses’ face) and figurative (spiritual blindness) senses must not blur | Disambiguate per verse in translator notes |
| chwała (glory, δόξα, ch. 3) | Comparative “greater glory” argument between covenants intensifies the baseline’s already-Medium risk | Flag for native-speaker review at every ch. 3 occurrence specifically for the comparative force, beyond the baseline’s general caution |
Gap: none lexical; risk is catechetical narrowing (liturgical association) and comparative-force preservation.
1.5 Sincerity and Apostolic Authority
| Available Polish term(s) | Weakness | Recommended strategy |
|---|---|---|
| szczerość (sincerity, εἰλικρίνεια) | Risk of softening into mere “tact” or reputation management in ordinary Polish usage | Anchor explicitly to purity of motive before God (1:12; 2:17), not diplomatic skill |
| prostota (ἁπλότης) | Polysemous across the letter itself: sincerity-of-motive sense (ch. 1, 11) vs. generosity-of-giving sense (ch. 8–9) — a genuine intra-Greek polysemy inherited by the single Polish gloss | Disambiguate per occurrence; do not assume a single sense carries across all six references |
| poseł / poselstwo (ambassador, πρεσβεύω, 5:20) | No major weakness, but must clearly convey derivative/representative authority | Preserve the “speaking in another’s name and by another’s authority” sense explicitly |
| służba / sługa (diakonia/diakonos) | Direct terminological neighbor collision: Polish “diakon” is the modern ordained clerical office (permanent/transitional diaconate) in Catholic and Orthodox church structure | ”Służba/sługa” correctly avoids the collision lexically, but teaching material must explicitly state Paul is not describing the modern diaconate |
Gap: none lexical; risk is intra-letter polysemy (haplotēs) and adjacent-office collision (diakonia).
1.6 Generosity and Grace in Giving
| Available Polish term(s) | Weakness | Recommended strategy |
|---|---|---|
| łaska (χάρις, extended generosity sense, chs. 8–9) | The Romans baseline fixes łaska as unmerited salvific favor contrasted with works/merit; chs. 8–9 extend the same word to mean generous enablement toward giving, risking a reversed reading where generosity becomes a means of earning grace | Flag every ch. 8–9 łaska occurrence for native-speaker review specifically to confirm the grace-produces-generosity direction, not generosity-earns-grace |
| dzięki Bogu (idiom exception, χάρις τῷ θεῷ) | Mechanical translation-memory enforcement would produce “łaska Bogu,” which is unnatural and doctrinally confusing | Record as an explicit exception (already done); apply only at 2:14; 8:16; 9:15 |
| siać / zbierać żniwo (sowing and reaping, 9:6,10) | Risk of prosperity-gospel misapplication (guaranteed material return for financial “seed”) | Explicit correction required: the harvest in context is righteousness and further generosity, not guaranteed material wealth |
| radosny dawca (cheerful giver, 9:7) | Low risk | Standard rendering |
Gap: none lexical; risk is semantic-range bleed within a single Polish word (łaska) across two different theological registers in the same letter.
1.7 Power in Weakness
| Available Polish term(s) | Weakness | Recommended strategy |
|---|---|---|
| słabość (ἀσθένεια) | See 1.3 above — paradox-resolution risk | Preserve paradox explicitly |
| moc Boża (δύναμις θεοῦ/Χριστοῦ) | No lexical weakness; standard baseline term | Reuse exactly |
| cierń w ciele (σκόλοψ τῇ σαρκί, 12:7) | Biblia Tysiąclecia’s alternate rendering “oścień dla ciała” could produce inconsistency if translators default to memory of that tradition | Standardize on “cierń w ciele” across all curriculum materials; note the alternate form once for reader awareness only |
| chlubić się / chełpić się (boasting) | A single English word (“boast”) maps to two Polish verbs of opposite moral valence; a translator working quickly could apply either indiscriminately | Enforce the valence split rigorously: chlubić się (in the Lord, legitimate) vs. chełpić się (self-exalting, illegitimate); this single choice governs correct doctrinal reading of 10:17 vs. 11:18, for example |
Gap: the “boasting” valence split is a genuine translation gap requiring two Polish words to do the disambiguating work one English word does contextually; treated as a fencing issue (Section 3), not a missing-vocabulary issue.
1.8 Genuine versus False Apostleship
| Available Polish term(s) | Weakness | Recommended strategy |
|---|---|---|
| apostoł (baseline) vs. wysłannicy zborów (8:23 generic sense) | Same Greek word (ἀπόστολος), two referents (foundational office vs. ordinary church delegate); a flat “apostoł” at 8:23 would wrongly elevate the collection-carriers to apostolic authority | Render 8:23 with the lower-register “wysłannicy zborów / posłowie kościołów,” never capitalized or paralleled to “apostoł” |
| arcyapostołowie (super-apostles, 11:5; 12:11) | A flat, non-ironic rendering would validate the rivals’ self-description | Preserve the ironic superlative force; “arcy-” prefix is judged sufficient to carry Paul’s sarcasm, but teaching notes must make the irony explicit |
| fałszywi apostołowie (false apostles, 11:13) | Low risk; standard negative compound | Retain |
| inny Jezus / inny duch / inna ewangelia (11:4) | Risk heightened by Poland’s religiously plural but historically Catholic-monolithic landscape, where “inna droga do tego samego Boga” framing is culturally familiar and could soften “inny” from “illegitimate substitute” to “acceptable variant” | Mandatory theologian review; teaching material must state explicitly these are rival substitutes, not alternate expressions of the same faith |
| czysta dziewica (pure virgin, 11:2–3) | High collision risk with Marian purity devotion (Immaculate Conception, national Marian shrines); “czysta dziewica” is close to devotional vocabulary applied to Mary | Mandatory explicit teaching note: corporate-ecclesial bridal imagery only, never a statement about Mary or an individual believer’s literal virginity |
Gap: none purely lexical; the doctrine’s risks are concentrated in irony-preservation, register discipline (apostoł vs. wysłannicy), and a high-salience Marian-devotional collision.
Section 2 — Missing Vocabulary (Genuine Lexical Gaps)
Unlike Romans, 2 Corinthians introduces relatively few concepts with no workable Polish equivalent at all; most risk is collision or polysemy (Section 3) rather than absence. The following are the closest true gaps:
- ἀρραβών (arrabōn) — legal guarantee/down payment. Polish “rękojmia” is a strong legal-commercial term (used of warranties/guarantees in contract law) and is judged an adequate equivalent, but it is not a “Bible word” in ordinary Polish religious vocabulary — most Polish Bible readers will encounter it here as a technical import from civil law register. Strategy: retain “rękojmia”; do not soften to a generic “dar” (gift), which would lose the legal-guarantee force the doctrine (Assurance of Salvation, cross-referenced to Romans 8) requires.
- δοκιμή/δόκιμος/δοκιμάζω (testing/proven character) as a unified word-family. Polish must split this Greek family across “próba” (noun), “wypróbowany” (adjective), and “badać/poddawać się badaniu” (verb, esp. reflexive at 13:5), with no single root binding them visibly the way the Greek does. Strategy: accept the split but require a cross-reference note so that the thread from 2:9 through 13:5 is taught as a single recurring theme despite the surface-level lexical variety in Polish.
- ἁπλότης (haplotēs) spanning two senses within one letter. No single Polish word cleanly carries both “singleness of sincere devotion” and “generosity/liberality”; “prostota” is the best available compromise but underperforms on the generosity sense compared to the sincerity sense. Strategy: disambiguate contextually per occurrence rather than seeking a new coinage.
- παρθένος ἁγνή (parthenos hagnē) as pure ecclesial-corporate imagery distinct from individual purity. Polish has no separate register-marked term that automatically signals “this is about the church corporately,” so “czysta dziewica” unavoidably imports individual/Marian resonance. Strategy: treat as a fencing problem (Section 3) rather than a vocabulary gap — no better Polish phrase exists.
- βῆμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ (bēma tou Christou) as a reward-tribunal distinct from a purificatory judgment. Polish has “trybunał” (tribunal/court) which conveys the juridical sense well, but Polish devotional vocabulary has no equally established phrase distinguishing “evaluation-for-reward-after-salvation-is-settled” from “judgment that determines/completes salvation.” Strategy: retain “trybunał Chrystusa” with a mandatory explanatory note distinguishing it from purgatorial purification (czyściec).
Section 3 — Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods Requiring Fencing
These are cases where an adequate (sometimes excellent) Polish word exists, but it shares a semantic or devotional neighborhood with an established, high-salience Polish Catholic concept, requiring an explicit “fence” (a mandatory teaching note or forbidden-substitution rule) rather than a different word choice.
| Polish term | Neighboring concept it must be fenced from | Fencing mechanism |
|---|---|---|
| pojednanie / pojednać się | Sakrament pokuty i pojednania (Sacrament of Reconciliation/Penance) | Mandatory note: God is sole active agent; reception by faith, not priestly-mediated rite |
| nawrócenie (repentance) | “Pokuta” — forbidden substitution, since pokuta denotes the sacramental transaction specifically | Absolute prohibition on “pokuta” as a rendering of μετάνοια; use “nawrócenie” or “upamiętanie” only |
| święci (saints, corporate) | Canonized/venerated saints (Kolbe, Faustyna, and the record-setting canonizations under John Paul II) | Mandatory clarifying note at every occurrence (1:1; 8:4; 9:1,12; 13:12–13), especially salient in the collection passages where “świętych” refers to ordinary Jerusalem believers in material need, not venerated figures |
| czysta dziewica (pure virgin) | Marian purity devotion / Immaculate Conception | Mandatory note: corporate church-bride imagery, never Mary or individual virginity |
| Ojciec miłosierdzia | Divine Mercy devotion (Boże Miłosierdzie) | Note anchoring the phrase to the letter’s own comfort-in-affliction argument (ch. 1, 4, 7), not the devotional complex alone |
| nowe przymierze | Mass consecration wording (“nowe i wieczne przymierze”) | Note requiring the fuller ch. 3 covenant-contrast argument to be taught, not assumed exhausted by the liturgical echo |
| służba / sługa (diakonia/diakonos) | The ordained diaconate (“diakon”) as a clerical office | Note: Paul’s usage predates and is broader than the later technical office; never imply the modern diaconate |
| ”bóg” tego świata (lowercase) | Bóg (capitalized, the true God) — [TM] | Absolute style-guide enforcement: lowercase only; a capitalization slip is itself a doctrinal error (implying dualism) |
| łaska (in chs. 8–9, generosity sense) | łaska (in chs. 3–5, salvific unmerited-favor sense) — same word, adjacent chapters, same letter | Native-speaker review flag specifically distinguishing “grace enables generosity” from “generosity earns grace” |
| chlubić się / chełpić się (boasting) | Each other — a single English concept split across two Polish words of opposite valence | Enforced valence rule (positive/legitimate vs. negative/self-exalting) applied per occurrence, not by default |
| wiara | ”Polak-katolik” national-cultural identity — [TM baseline] | Reused baseline forbidden-substitution rule; reinforced at 13:5’s self-examination imperative |
| pociecha/pocieszać vs. napominać vs. prosić/wzywać | Three senses of one Greek verb (παρακαλέω) mapped to three different Polish words | Mandatory per-occurrence sense-check; never default from Romans-trained habit |
| ciało (flesh, σάρξ) | Its own multiple senses (perceptual/anthropological, military-metaphorical, moral/credential) plus the Romans-trained “sinful nature” association | Native-speaker review flag at 5:16; 10:3–4; 11:18 individually |
Section 4 — Transliteration versus Paraphrase Decisions
| Term | Decision | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Belial (Βελίαρ, 6:15) | Transliterate (“Belial”) + mandatory explanatory footnote identifying with Satan | No Polish equivalent exists; the name is rare enough in modern Polish religious literacy that an unexplained transliteration risks being read as a separate mythological figure rather than a title for Satan |
| Abba (relevant if cross-referenced from Romans 8:15, though not itself occurring in 2 Corinthians) | Transliterate, paired with “Ojcze,” per established Romans-baseline precedent | Consistency across the curriculum; no 2 Corinthians-specific occurrence requires a new decision |
| ἀρραβών (arrabōn) | Paraphrase, not transliterate (“rękojmia”) | A transliterated Greek loanword would be opaque to Polish readers; “rękojmia” is an existing, precise legal-guarantee term |
| σκόλοψ τῇ σαρκί | Paraphrase (“cierń w ciele”), standardized against the Biblia Tysiąclecia alternate (“oścień dla ciała”) | Established Bible-translation vocabulary exists; no transliteration is appropriate for a common noun phrase |
| ὑπερλίαν ἀπόστολοι | Paraphrase with irony preserved (“arcyapostołowie”), not a flat descriptive translation | A literal “apostołowie ponad miarę” would be clumsy; the “arcy-” superlative prefix is idiomatic Polish and preserves Paul’s sarcasm economically |
| Proper names (Paul, Titus, Timothy, Corinth, Macedonia, Achaia, Damascus, etc.) | Use established Polish Bible-tradition forms (Paweł, Tytus, Tymoteusz, Korynt, Macedonia, Achaja, Damaszek) | Per the Romans baseline’s transliteration standards; no new decision required, but full-book coverage requires this be stated explicitly since 2 Corinthians introduces several new proper names absent from Romans |
| Χριστός (Christos) | Use “Chrystus” (title/name), not “Mesjasz” | Per baseline convention: “Mesjasz” is reserved for explicit Old Testament messianic-fulfillment argument; 2 Corinthians uses Χριστός pervasively as part of Jesus’ proper name/title, matching ordinary Polish Bible usage |
| διακονία / διάκονος | Paraphrase (“służba” / “sługa”), never transliterate as “diakonia/diakon” | Transliteration would directly import the modern clerical-office term, the exact collision this analysis must avoid |
| καταλλαγή / καταλλάσσω | Paraphrase (“pojednanie” / “pojednać się”), no transliteration option meaningful in Polish | Standard theological vocabulary; transliteration is not a live option for this term |
Section 5 — Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities in 2 Corinthians
Ranked by combined severity (doctrinal centrality × cultural-collision intensity × frequency), for prioritized Phase 2 review routing.
- “Became sin” / “become the righteousness of God” (5:21) — Critical. The passage’s climactic double exchange; any drift toward implying Christ’s moral character changed would be doctrinally catastrophic and pastorally destabilizing given Polish devotion to Christ’s sinless purity (Najświętsze Serce Jezusa). Mandatory theologian review, every occurrence.
- Reconciliation/pojednanie vs. the Sacrament of Reconciliation (5:18–20) — Critical. The single highest-frequency doctrinal collision in the letter’s core passage; misreading collapses God’s completed act into a repeatable clerical rite.
- “Different Jesus / different spirit / different gospel” (11:4) — Critical. Poland’s plural-but-historically-monolithic religious landscape makes “inny” dangerously easy to soften from “illegitimate substitute” to “acceptable alternate path.”
- New creation (5:17) flattened into secular self-improvement register — Critical. Contemporary Polish self-help vocabulary (“nowy ja,” “transformacja”) is a live cultural competitor to the ontological Spirit-wrought sense.
- “The Lord is the Spirit” (3:17) Trinitarian identification — Critical. Highest technical Trinitarian risk in the letter; a careless rendering could imply modalism (collapsing distinct Persons).
- Pure virgin / bridal imagery (11:2–3) vs. Marian devotion — High-Critical. Extremely high cultural salience of Marian purity devotion in Poland; corporate-ecclesial meaning must be actively defended in teaching material, not assumed self-evident.
- “God of this age” (4:4) capitalization discipline — Critical (mechanical). A single missed capital letter constitutes a doctrinal error implying dualism; highest risk of silent error since it is not a translation-choice risk but a typographical-discipline risk.
- Grace (łaska) semantic bleed between salvific and generosity senses (chs. 3–5 vs. 8–9) — High. Same word, same letter, opposite risk of reversing the grace/merit relationship Paul is building toward in the collection appeal.
- Saints (święci) in the collection passages (8:4; 9:1,12) — High. Compounded risk: not only the baseline canonized-sainthood collision, but specifically applied to material poverty relief, where Polish readers might assume “świętych” refers to a venerated religious class rather than ordinary needy believers in Jerusalem.
- Boasting valence split (chlubić się / chełpić się) — High. A single mistranslation direction (rendering 10:17’s legitimate glorying with the negative-valence word, or vice versa) inverts Paul’s entire argument about legitimate vs. illegitimate boasting.
- Diakonia/diakonos vs. the modern diaconate — High. Persistent low-grade risk across nearly every chapter (3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11); cumulative exposure across the whole letter makes consistent fencing essential.
- Παρακαλέω polysemy (comfort/exhort/entreat) — High. Concentrated in chs. 1, 5, and 7; a translator working from Romans-trained habit is likely to default incorrectly to “napominać.”
- Judgment seat of Christ (5:10) vs. purgatorial purification — High. Directly adjacent to the core passage; conflation with czyściec would undermine the “already justified, now evaluated for reward” logic essential to reading 5:11 onward correctly.
- “Father of mercies” (1:3) vs. Divine Mercy devotion — Medium-High. Asset-and-risk in equal measure; requires deliberate anchoring rather than passive reliance on devotional familiarity.
- New covenant (3:6) vs. Mass consecration wording — Medium-High. Similar asset/risk profile to #14; the phrase’s liturgical familiarity must not substitute for the chapter’s actual argument.
Section 6 — Full-Book Coverage Confirmation
Every chapter of 2 Corinthians has been reviewed for gap-analysis purposes. Chapters generating no new gap beyond what is already resolved by the Romans baseline or by entries elsewhere in this document are recorded here explicitly rather than silently omitted:
- Chapter 2 (beyond fragrance-of-Christ, peddling-God’s-word, and forgive/charizomai, already covered in Section 1.5/1.6/1.8 context): no additional gap; standard vocabulary.
- Chapter 6 (beyond unequally yoked, Belial, temple of God, already covered): no additional gap.
- Chapter 7 (beyond godly/worldly sorrow and repentance, already covered): no additional gap.
- Chapter 9 (beyond sowing/reaping, cheerful giver, collection, thanks-be-to-God idiom, already covered): no additional gap.
- Chapter 10 (beyond flesh, boasting, measure/rule, already covered): no additional gap.
- Chapter 12 (beyond revelations, thorn in the flesh, weakness, grace-is-sufficient, signs of a true apostle, already covered): no additional gap.
All other chapters (1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 13) contribute load-bearing new vocabulary or doctrinal-collision risk and are treated at length in Sections 1–5 above.
This document extends, and must never contradict, the Romans baseline translation_memory.json and bible_term_registry.json. All term renderings recommended here are already reflected in 08_core_glossary.md and the 2 Corinthians extension of bible_term_registry.json; this document supplies the linguistic-gap rationale underlying those entries for Phase 1 sign-off.