Executive Summary — 2 Peter (English → Polish)

Why it matters: 2 Peter extends the Romans-based Polish Language Package into a book whose core passage (1:16–21) makes Scripture’s divine reliability its central argument — and does so using vocabulary (divine nature, the Parousia, the Day of the Lord, God’s patience, false teachers) that collides with Polish Catholic popular piety in ways Romans never had to address. Phase 2 translation cannot begin safely until these collision points are locked into enforceable rules, because a single unguarded word choice (e.g., “Lucyfer” for “morning star,” or “pokuta” for “repentance”) could invert the text’s meaning for a Polish reader.

Key findings:

• The full-book term inventory adds 92 terms to the Language Package (21 baseline terms reused exactly, 71 new terms specific to 2 Peter), documented in assets/translation_memory.json.
• 21 terms carry Critical risk and 22 terms carry High risk — 43 terms in total requiring mandatory human theologian review at every occurrence, more than double Romans’ proportional density, concentrated in Christology, Scripture-inspiration, and eschatology vocabulary.
• At the doctrine level, assets/doctrine_risk_registry.json records 11 Critical-risk doctrines and 3 High-risk doctrines (14 total requiring theologian review), against 3 Medium-risk doctrines (native speaker review) and 1 Low-risk doctrine (automated review only) — a markedly higher Critical concentration than the Romans baseline.
• Three collision patterns are unique to this book and absent from Romans: (1) false-friend mythological borrowings (φωσφόρος risking “Lucyfer”; Τάρταρος risking direct pagan-cosmology import), (2) a technical revelation-epistemology vocabulary (epignōsis/gnōsis, prophētikos logos, pheromenoi) with no clean one-to-one Polish lexical match, and (3) collision with a mature, catechetically codified Polish virtue framework (aretē/“cnota” against the Thomistic theological-and-cardinal-virtues list).
• The single highest-severity risk in the entire book is 2 Peter 1:4’s “partakers of the divine nature” (uczestnicy Boskiej natury), which sits at the intersection of three distinct misreading traditions active in Poland: Orthodox theosis, New Age “divine spark” spirituality, and self-divinization claims of new religious movements.

Risks:

• Rendering φωσφόρος (1:19) with any trace of “Lucyfer” would attach Satan’s Polish proper name to an image of Christ’s return — a severe, single-word doctrinal inversion.
• Rendering μετάνοια (3:9) as unqualified “pokuta” would sacramentalize a universally accessible call to inward turning, repeating the exact collision pattern the Romans baseline already documents for “wiara” and “usprawiedliwienie.”
• Collapsing δεσπότης (2:1, “Władca”) into “Pan” would erase Peter’s deliberate rhetorical escalation against the false teachers.
• Teaching ἀρετή (1:5, “cnota”) without explicit fencing risks the entire virtue chain being silently absorbed into the Thomistic catechism list as a moralistic checklist, undermining the grace-first logic of 1:3–4.
• Inconsistent rendering of παρουσία across 1:16, 3:4, and 3:12 would weaken the letter’s central rhetorical link between the Transfiguration preview and the rebuttal of the scoffers.

Opportunities:

• Poland’s near-universal weekly recitation of the Creed’s “przyjdzie w chwale sądzić żywych i umarłych” gives the Certainty-of-Christ’s-Return doctrine unusually strong linguistic familiarity to build on, provided the translation counters rote-recitation complacency with vivid, specific framing.
• The Old Testament’s own “Day of the LORD” tradition and Jewish teshuvah (“return”) offer genuine, non-Christian-specific points of contact that can be used pedagogically without doctrinal compromise.
• Because Polish already possesses settled, non-invented renderings for nearly every term (per 05_translation_landscape.md), the translation task is disciplined doctrinal fencing and consistency enforcement, not vocabulary invention — a lower-risk task profile than languages facing genuine lexical gaps.

Recommended actions:

1. Lock the ten highest-severity Critical terms (divine_nature, morning_star, repentance, carried_along, scripture, parousia, tartarus_cast, savior, christ_name, day_of_the_lord) into Phase 2 validation rules as hard-fail checks, not merely soft flags, per 12_ai_translation_requirements.md.
2. Require the mandatory disambiguating teaching note for “uczestnicy Boskiej natury” (1:4) to be generated and reviewed before any Phase 2 segment containing it is approved.
3. Route all 14 theologian-review doctrines and 43 Critical/High terms through dedicated theologian review queues, prioritized in the order documented in 06_linguistic_gap_analysis.md §4 (divine nature, morning star, repentance, carried-along first).
4. Commission a dedicated teaching sidebar (beyond ordinary translator-note scope) distinguishing 2 Peter’s virtue chain (1:5–7) from the Thomistic “cnoty” catechism list, for use across all Phase 2/3 curriculum materials.
5. Enforce identical cross-document rendering of 2 Peter 1:1, 1:16/3:4/3:12 (parousia), and 3:18 as this letter’s thesis-level verses, mirroring the baseline’s treatment of Romans 1:16–17, 8:28, and 10:9–10.

---

This summary reflects the full-book analysis in 07_semantic_analysis.md, 08_core_glossary.md, 11_doctrine_analysis.md, 04_comparative_theology.md, 06_linguistic_gap_analysis.md, and the accompanying assets/ registries. It extends, and does not contradict, the Romans baseline Language Package’s executive findings.