Linguistic Gap Analysis — 2 Peter (English → Polish)

Purpose

This analysis identifies where standard Polish theological vocabulary is (a) genuinely missing for a concept 2 Peter requires, (b) crowded — already occupied by a Polish Catholic, folk-devotional, or secular sense strong enough to distort the doctrine unless explicitly fenced, or (c) contested between a transliteration and a paraphrase strategy. It extends the Romans baseline Language Package; it does not revisit or reopen any baseline term. Findings here are already reflected in 08_core_glossary.md and the updated bible_term_registry.json; this document records the reasoning behind those choices, as required by PRD Phase 1 Step 6/8 methodology, and ranks the letter’s highest-risk ambiguities for Phase 2 review routing.

2 Peter presents a different gap profile than Romans. Romans’ risks cluster around soteriology vocabulary already deeply embedded in Polish religious culture (wiara, łaska, zbawienie). 2 Peter adds three further pressure points largely absent from Romans: (1) direct borrowings from Greco-Roman mythology and astronomy (Tartarus, morning star) that create false-friend collision risk distinct from Romans’ inherited-identity collision risk; (2) a technical epistemology-of-revelation vocabulary (epignōsis/gnōsis, prophetic word, “carried along”) with no clean one-to-one Polish lexical pairing; and (3) a virtue-chain vocabulary (aretē, eusebeia) that collides with a mature, catechetically codified Polish Catholic moral-theology framework (the theological and cardinal virtues) that 2 Peter’s list does not map onto.

---

1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

For each named curriculum doctrine: the available Polish candidate term(s), their specific weaknesses, and the recommended strategy.

1.1 The Reliability and Inspiration of Scripture

Candidate Polish term(s)	Weakness	Recommended strategy
Pismo / Pismo Święte (γραφή)	Standard and doctrinally sound in isolation, but Polish Catholic catechesis routinely presents Scripture as one of two co-authoritative streams of revelation alongside Sacred Tradition (Tradycja) and the Magisterium (Urząd Nauczycielski Kościoła); this pairing is absent from 2 Peter’s own argument, which grounds certainty in Scripture’s divine origin alone (1:20-21) plus verified apostolic eyewitness testimony (1:16-18).	Use “Pismo (Święte)” without alteration, but require a teaching note at every Critical occurrence (1:20; 3:16) stating the argument of the passage: prophecy’s authority rests on its divine origin, not on ongoing ecclesial reinterpretation. Do not introduce “Tradycja” language into the translation itself.
słowo prorockie (προφητικὸς λόγος)	The baseline treats “prorok”/“proroctwo” as Low risk in isolation (unambiguous lexeme); this curriculum elevates the doctrine attached to it (Scripture’s authority exceeding even eyewitness testimony, 1:19) without any corresponding change in the word itself. Risk is catechetical under-weighting, not lexical ambiguity.	Retain “słowo prorockie” but pair with the comparative force of “bebaioteros” (“jeszcze bardziej potwierdzone”) every occurrence; do not let the phrase read as a devotional literary category.
prowadzeni/unoszeni przez Ducha Świętego (φερόμενοι)	No single Polish verb captures φέρω’s nautical “carried by the wind” image (cf. Acts 27:15,17); common renderings default to a vague “natchnieni” (inspired), which in contemporary Polish usage has drifted toward “creatively motivated” (natchnienie artystyczne) rather than sovereign divine causation.	Reject “natchnieni” as the primary verb (acceptable only as a supporting noun, “natchnienie Pisma,” per the baseline doctrine name). Use the fuller phrase “prowadzeni/unoszeni przez Ducha Świętego” to force the wind/sail image into view. Mandatory theologian review every occurrence (already reflected in registry).
wykładnia / wyjaśnienie (ἐπίλυσις)	Genuine Greek-level ambiguity (origin vs. interpretation reading) has no single Polish word that preserves both senses simultaneously; whichever is chosen will read as resolving an exegetical debate the source text may leave partly open.	Choose “wykładnia” (interpretation-leaning) as primary rendering per majority modern commentary consensus, record “origin” as alternative in segment cache, flag every occurrence for theologian review.

1.2 Growing in Christian Virtue

Candidate Polish term(s)	Weakness	Recommended strategy
cnota (ἀρετή)	Polish possesses an unusually rich, not missing, vocabulary here — the Thomistic three theological + four cardinal virtues framework (wiara, nadzieja, miłość; męstwo, sprawiedliwość, umiarkowanie, roztropność) is catechetically standard and instantly triggers that mental list. 2 Peter’s chain (faith → virtue → knowledge → self-control → perseverance → godliness → brotherly kindness → love) does not map onto it and risks being taught as “the eighth virtue” or a competing checklist.	Use “cnota” (no better lexical option exists) but require an explicit teaching note at every occurrence of 1:5-7 clarifying that this is a different, Spirit-enabled organic chain flowing from the divine power already given (1:3), not an alternative catechism list to master by effort.
pobożność (εὐσέβεια)	Crowded neighborhood: in vernacular Polish Catholic usage “pobożność” gravitates toward externally visible devotional practice — attending nabożeństwa, pielgrzymki, Marian veneration — rather than the holistic, every-domain God-reverence 2 Peter intends.	Retain “pobożność” (no viable substitute exists) but pair with explicit teaching language (“pobożność obejmująca całe życie, a nie tylko praktyki religijne”) at every occurrence.
poznanie / wiedza (ἐπίγνωσις / γνῶσις)	Missing-vocabulary gap: Polish has no clean lexical pair distinguishing intensive relational knowledge (epignōsis) from general knowledge (gnōsis), unlike Greek’s morphological distinction. Both often default to “poznanie” or “wiedza” interchangeably.	Reserve “poznanie (pełne/dokładne)” or “prawdziwe poznanie [Boga/Chrystusa]” consistently for epignōsis (1:2,3,8; 2:20); reserve plain “wiedza” or unqualified “poznanie” for gnōsis (1:5; 3:18). Flag for native speaker review wherever the distinction carries doctrinal weight.
miłość (ἀγάπη)	Not missing but broad: Polish “miłość” spans romantic, familial, patriotic (miłość ojczyzny), and self-giving senses without morphological narrowing.	Use “miłość” (only viable option; new addition to translation memory) with a mandatory clarifying gloss at 1:7 and 3:18 identifying it as the culminating, others-oriented, self-giving quality crowning the virtue chain.

1.3 False Teachers and Their Judgment

Candidate Polish term(s)	Weakness	Recommended strategy
fałszywy nauczyciel (ψευδοδιδάσκαλος)	No lexical weakness, but a framing risk: without explicit context, readers may picture an external cult leader or sect founder rather than a professing, credentialed insider within the believing community — 2 Peter’s actual target.	Use “fałszywy nauczyciel” with mandatory framing note (“wewnątrz wspólnoty wierzących”) at first occurrence (2:1) and recurring reminder in ch. 2 study material.
zgubne nauki (αἵρεσις ἀπωλείας)	Crowded neighborhood: “herezja,” the more literal cognate, carries a specific Polish Catholic canon-law meaning (a formally defined doctrinal offense subject to the Codex of Canon Law’s juridical processes) that is narrower and more institutional than Peter’s pastoral usage.	Avoid bare “herezje” as the primary rendering; use “zgubne nauki” throughout, reserving “herezja” only for a supporting explanatory footnote about the word’s etymology.
Władca (δεσπότης)	Missing-vocabulary risk in the opposite direction: if rendered simply as “Pan” (matching kyrios), the distinct, stronger absolute-ownership sense Peter deliberately reaches for is erased, and the rhetorical escalation (“Master who bought them”) is flattened.	Reserve “Władca” (capitalized) exclusively for δεσπότης, keeping it visibly distinct from “Pan”; never allow it to soften to lowercase “pan” (courteous address).
wtrącił do ciemności (ταρταρόω)	See §3 below (Transliteration vs. Paraphrase).	Paraphrase; never transliterate “Tartar.”

1.4 The Certainty of Christ’s Return

Candidate Polish term(s)	Weakness	Recommended strategy
przyjście (paruzja) (παρουσία)	“Przyjście” alone is a common, low-weight everyday word (“nadejście,” “przybycie”) that can read as a routine arrival rather than the singular, climactic, glorious event 2 Peter has in view; a bare “obecność” (presence) reading would be a doctrinal error (metaphorical influence rather than literal bodily return).	Render “przyjście” in running text, always with the parenthetical transliteration “(paruzja)” at first occurrence per chapter to anchor the technical sense; never use “obecność.” Enforce identical rendering across 1:16, 3:4, 3:12 per baseline cross-document consistency principle (cf. Romans 1:16-17, 8:28, 10:9-10 precedent).
gwiazda poranna (φωσφόρος)	See §3 below. Highest-severity false-friend risk in the entire letter.	Paraphrase/fixed rendering only; absolute prohibition on “Lucyfer.”
szyderca (ἐμπαίκτης)	No lexical weakness; risk is under-flagging — a common word that could be processed as merely descriptive (“someone who mocks”) rather than tied to the specific denial of the parousia doctrine that defines the term in 3:3-4.	Retain “szyderca”; require doctrinal tagging in Phase 2 metadata linking every occurrence to the Certainty-of-Return doctrine.

1.5 The Day of the Lord and Final Judgment

Candidate Polish term(s)	Weakness	Recommended strategy
dzień Pański / dzień Pana (ἡμέρα Κυρίου)	Mild crowding: “dzień Pański” in Polish Catholic usage can evoke Sunday observance (Dzień Pański = the Lord’s Day, i.e., Sunday) rather than the OT/NT technical eschatological Day of judgment.	Prefer “dzień Pana” as primary rendering to reduce Sunday-observance conflation, retaining “dzień Pański” as an acceptable liturgical-register variant only with explicit eschatological framing in context.
sąd (κρίσις) / zguba, zatracenie (ἀπώλεια)	No lexical weakness; both are standard, unambiguous. Risk is theological under-development if taught in isolation from the salvation/zbawienie antonym pairing already established in the baseline.	Consistently pair “zguba/zatracenie” with explicit contrast to baseline “zbawienie” in teaching notes, reinforcing the two-destiny structure of the letter.
nowe niebiosa i nowa ziemia (καινοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ γῆν καινήν)	Missing-vocabulary risk is low, but Poland’s growing exposure to New Age and Eastern-influenced popular spirituality (reincarnation, cyclical cosmic renewal) creates a crowded neighborhood risk parallel to the baseline’s resurrection caution.	Teach as a definitive, once-for-all re-creation event, explicitly parallel to (never a cycle following) the baseline’s “zmartwychwstanie” caution.

1.6 Patience of God’s Timing

Candidate Polish term(s)	Weakness	Recommended strategy
cierpliwość [Boża] (μακροθυμία)	No lexical weakness in “cierpliwość” itself, but bare “cierpliwość” without qualification risks a passive, human-virtue reading (patience as a trait one has) rather than God’s purposeful, salvation-oriented forbearance that is the actual subject of 3:9,15.	Always qualify as “cierpliwość Boża” or “Boża cierpliwość” in this doctrine’s occurrences; never leave unqualified. Mandatory theologian review (already reflected in registry).
nie zwleka / nie jest powolny (βραδύνει)	Weak negations in Polish translation practice sometimes soften into “nie bardzo się spieszy” (isn’t in much of a hurry), which inadvertently concedes the scoffers’ charge rather than refuting it.	Require an emphatic negation construction, always paired in the same sentence or immediately following clause with the positive purpose statement (giving space for repentance).
nawrócenie (μετάνοια)	CROWDED NEIGHBORHOOD — see §2 below; the cognate “pokuta” is bound to the sacrament of Penance/Reconciliation.	See fencing strategy in §2; mandatory theologian review every occurrence (already reflected in registry).

1.7 Divine Nature and Escaping Corruption

Candidate Polish term(s)	Weakness	Recommended strategy
Boska natura / uczestnicy Boskiej natury (θεία φύσις / κοινωνοὶ θείας φύσεως)	HIGHEST-SEVERITY crowded neighborhood in this letter. See ranked list §4, item #1.	Mandatory explicit disambiguating note at every occurrence; never left to inference.
zepsucie / skażenie (φθορά)	Colloquial Polish “zepsucie” leans toward mundane spoilage (“zepsucie żywności” — food going bad) more readily than moral corruption of character; risk is under-weighting the term’s seriousness, not mis-identifying a false friend.	Prefer “zepsucie moralne” or “skażenie” with explicit moral-corruption framing at first occurrence in each chapter (1:4; 2:12,19).
pożądliwość (ἐπιθυμία)	No lexical weakness; standard, consistently negative.	Retain baseline pattern; no additional fencing required.
Boska moc (θεία δύναμις)	No lexical weakness; risk is sequencing — if taught after, rather than before, the virtue chain, students may read the virtues as self-generated rather than divinely supplied.	Ensure teaching material always introduces “Boska moc” (1:3) before the virtue chain (1:5-7) in narrative sequence, reinforcing grace-before-effort logic.

---

2. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods

2.1 Missing Vocabulary (no adequate single Polish term exists)

These are genuine lexical gaps, not cultural collisions — Polish simply lacks a term with the required precision, requiring a compound phrase, qualifier, or paraphrase.

English/Greek concept	Gap description	Resolution
ἐπίγνωσις vs. γνῶσις	No morphological distinction available in Polish between “intensive/relational knowledge” and “general knowledge”	Use qualified compound phrases (“poznanie pełne/dokładne” vs. plain “wiedza/poznanie”); flag ambiguous cases
φερόμενοι (nautical “carried by wind”)	No single Polish verb carries both “genuine human agency” and “external, sovereign propulsion” simultaneously	Use full descriptive phrase “prowadzeni/unoszeni przez Ducha Świętego” rather than a single verb
ἐπίλυσις	Origin/interpretation double sense has no single Polish equivalent	Choose one primary rendering, record alternative, flag for review
ἔξοδος (deliberate echo of Exodus)	Polish “odejście” (departure) carries none of the intertextual echo of “Wyjście” (the book of Exodus) that a Greek-literate first-century reader would catch	Preserve “odejście” as the plain rendering; supply mandatory teaching note flagging the lost echo (already reflected in glossary)
δεσπότης distinct from κύριος	Polish “pan” as the default kyrios rendering leaves no readily available stronger ownership-term ready to hand	Reserve capitalized “Władca” specifically for despotēs, kept visibly distinct from “Pan”

2.2 Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods (a Polish term exists but is already occupied by a stronger, competing sense)

These require active fencing — explicit disambiguating notes accompanying every occurrence — rather than a search for a better word, since no better word exists.

Polish term	Competing occupant of the semantic space	Fencing required
Boska natura / uczestnicy Boskiej natury	(1) Eastern Orthodox theosis/przebóstwienie (fuller ontological transformation); (2) New Age/pantheistic “divine spark in everyone”; (3) new-religious-movement self-divinization claims	Explicit note every occurrence: moral/relational participation in God’s holy character by grace; Creator-creature distinction never collapsed
nawrócenie / pokuta	Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation (Sakrament Pokuty i Pojednania) — a defined ritual act with confession, prescribed acts, and absolution	Use “nawrócenie” as primary term; never default to “pokuta” without qualification in this letter; note that metanoia in 3:9 is inward and universally required, not a sacramental act
cnota	Codified Thomistic theological + cardinal virtues catechism list	Explicit note distinguishing 2 Peter’s Spirit-enabled organic chain from the catechism virtue list
pobożność	External devotional-practice piety (nabożeństwa, pielgrzymki, popular Marian devotion)	Explicit note: holistic, every-domain reverence for God, not a devotional-practice checklist
zgubne nauki / herezja	Canon-law-defined formal heresy (Kodeks Prawa Kanonicznego)	Use “zgubne nauki” as primary; reserve “herezja” for an etymological footnote only
dzień Pański	Sunday observance (Dzień Pański = the Lord’s Day)	Prefer “dzień Pana”; where “dzień Pański” is used, pair with explicit eschatological framing
wstawiennictwo (baseline reuse, relevant to 2 Peter’s prayer references)	Marian/saintly intercessory devotion centered on Częstochowa	Baseline fencing rule carries forward unchanged; no new occurrence in 2 Peter’s core doctrines beyond baseline scope
powołanie (baseline reuse; 1:10 “make your calling and election sure”)	Priesthood/religious-life vocation (powołanie kapłańskie/zakonne)	Baseline fencing rule carries forward unchanged; pair with explicit “wezwanie każdego wierzącego” context at 1:10
gwiazda poranna	”Lucyfer” as a proper name for Satan, via the unrelated Isaiah 14:12 Vulgate mistranslation tradition	Absolute prohibition on “Lucyfer” in text or footnote; see §3

---

3. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions

2 Peter contains several terms borrowed directly from Greco-Roman mythology, astronomy, or philosophical vocabulary that force an explicit choice between transliterating the Greek term into Polish or paraphrasing its sense. Each decision below is final for this Language Package.

Term	Transliteration option	Paraphrase option	Decision	Rationale
παρουσία (parousia)	“paruzja” alone	”przyjście,” “powrót”	Hybrid: “przyjście” in running text, “(paruzja)” as parenthetical anchor at first occurrence per chapter	Pure transliteration (“paruzja”) would be theologically precise but inaccessible to the target reading level (secondary-school proficiency per baseline register requirement); pure paraphrase (“przyjście”) alone risks flattening into a routine-arrival sense. Hybrid captures both.
ταρταρόω / Τάρταρος (Tartarus)	“wtrącił do Tartaru"	"wtrącił do ciemności / w kajdany mroku”	Paraphrase only	Transliterating “Tartar” would import an actual Greco-Roman mythological place-name into the Polish biblical text, risking readers concluding Scripture affirms pagan cosmology. Peter’s rhetorical strategy borrows a term his Hellenistic audience would recognize; the effect (a place of confinement/darkness pending judgment) is what must transfer, not the mythological label itself.
φωσφόρος (phōsphoros, “morning star”)	“fosfor” (impossible — false cognate to the chemical element) / “Lucyfer” (literal Vulgate-tradition cognate)	“gwiazda poranna”	Paraphrase only — mandatory	This is the single most severe transliteration trap in the letter. The Latin Vulgate’s literal “lucifer” for this Greek word became, via the unrelated Isaiah 14:12 tradition, the standard Polish proper name for Satan. Using it here would attach the adversary’s name to a positive image of Christ’s illuminating return. No transliteration is acceptable under any circumstance; “gwiazda poranna” is the sole permitted rendering.
μῦθος (mythos)	“mit” alone	”zmyślone mity/bajki”	Paraphrase with intensifier	Bare “mit” in secularizing Polish discourse is casually applied to religious claims generally, including Christianity itself; the qualifying “zmyślone” (fabricated/invented) is required to keep Peter’s emphatic denial from ironically reinforcing the very charge he refutes.
δεσπότης (despotēs)	“despota"	"Władca”	Paraphrase (established Bible-translation term), not modern transliteration	Modern Polish “despota” carries a strongly negative modern-political connotation (tyrant, dictator) absent from the term’s biblical sense of legitimate absolute ownership; “Władca,” the term used in existing Polish Bible traditions for this verse, avoids the anachronistic negative charge.
ἐπίγνωσις (epignōsis)	“epignosis” (unattested in Polish Bible tradition)	“poznanie (pełne/dokładne)“	Paraphrase only	No transliteration tradition exists in Polish Bible history for this term; inventing one would create an unfamiliar technical term with zero reader recognition, contrary to the baseline’s established-term-reuse principle.
μακροθυμία (makrothymia)	“makrotymia” (unattested)	“cierpliwość [Boża]“	Paraphrase only	Same rationale as epignōsis; no precedent transliteration exists, and “cierpliwość” already carries sufficient dignity in Polish devotional register once qualified with “Boża.”

General rule derived from these cases: transliterate only where (a) an established Polish Bible-translation precedent already exists (none found among 2 Peter’s distinctive vocabulary beyond the optional parousia/paruzja pairing), or (b) the transliterated form carries no competing false-friend association in Polish. Where a competing association exists (Lucyfer, Tartar, despota), paraphrase is mandatory regardless of etymological literalness.

---

4. Ranked List of This Letter’s Highest-Risk Ambiguities

Ranked by combined severity of (a) doctrinal centrality and (b) probability of collision with an entrenched competing Polish sense. All items ranked Critical or High require human theologian review per the escalation rules pattern established in the baseline 12_ai_translation_requirements.md.

1. θεία φύσις / κοινωνοὶ θείας φύσεως (“Boska natura / uczestnicy Boskiej natury”) — 2 Peter 1:4. Highest-risk item in the entire letter. Three simultaneous competing senses available to a Polish reader (Orthodox theosis, New Age divine-spark spirituality, self-divinization movements) can each independently corrupt the doctrine into ontological equality with God. Requires explicit disambiguation at every single occurrence, never left implicit.

2. φωσφόρος (“gwiazda poranna,” never “Lucyfer”) — 2 Peter 1:19. Second-highest risk: a single mistranslation choice (following the literal Vulgate cognate) would attach Satan’s Polish proper name to an image of Christ’s return. Zero tolerance for the forbidden alternative; must be enforced at the validation-rule level in Phase 2, not merely flagged.

3. μετάνοια (“nawrócenie,” never defaulting to “pokuta”) — 2 Peter 3:9. Mirrors the exact collision pattern the Romans baseline already documents for “wiara” and “usprawiedliwienie”: a live sacramental category (Penance/Reconciliation) sits directly on top of the NT concept, and unqualified use of the cognate would default readers to a ritual-act reading absent from Peter’s argument.

4. φερόμενοι (“prowadzeni/unoszeni przez Ducha Świętego”) — 2 Peter 1:21. The letter’s proof-text for the doctrine of Scripture’s inspiration; the available shortcut term “natchnieni” has drifted semantically toward artistic/creative inspiration in contemporary Polish and would silently weaken the doctrine if substituted.

5. ἀρετή (“cnota”) in the virtue chain — 2 Peter 1:5-7. Not a false-friend collision but a false-equivalence risk: Poland’s uniquely well-developed Thomistic virtue catechesis could cause 2 Peter’s Spirit-enabled organic chain to be silently re-taught as an alternative merit-based virtue checklist, undermining the grace-first logic of 1:3-4.

6. ταρταρόω (“wtrącił do ciemności”) — 2 Peter 2:4. Direct importation risk of actual Greco-Roman mythology into the biblical text if transliterated; requires paraphrase discipline and a teaching note explaining Peter’s rhetorical strategy without conceding pagan cosmology.

7. αἵρεσις ἀπωλείας (“zgubne nauki,” never bare “herezje”) — 2 Peter 2:1. Canon-law register capture risk: bare “herezja” narrows Peter’s broad pastoral warning to a formally adjudicated ecclesiastical category, potentially excluding the informal, uncredentialed false teaching Peter actually targets.

8. εὐσέβεια (“pobożność”) — 2 Peter 1:6-7. Devotional-practice-checklist capture risk parallel to item 5; the word is correct, but its dominant cultural referent (external observance) differs from the letter’s holistic sense.

9. ἐπίγνωσις vs. γνῶσις (“poznanie” vs. “wiedza”) — 2 Peter 1:2,3,5,8; 3:18. Structural ambiguity risk: without careful consistent qualification, the letter’s deliberate distinction between intensive relational knowledge and general growth-knowledge collapses into a single undifferentiated Polish term across all four occurrences, weakening the letter’s own argument that epignōsis is the ground of everything else.

10. παρουσία (“przyjście / paruzja”) — 2 Peter 1:16; 3:4; 3:12. Consistency risk more than mistranslation risk: because “przyjście” alone is a low-weight everyday word, inconsistent hybrid application (sometimes with the “(paruzja)” anchor, sometimes without) across the three occurrences would weaken the letter’s rhetorical unity between the Transfiguration preview (ch.1) and the scoffers’ denial (ch.3).

11. δεσπότης vs. κύριος (“Władca” vs. “Pan”) — 2 Peter 2:1. Under-differentiation risk: if translators default to “Pan” for convenience, Peter’s rhetorical escalation (a stronger ownership-term for a stronger accusation) is lost, muting the seriousness of the false teachers’ denial.

12. ἐπίλυσις (“wykładnia”) — 2 Peter 1:20. Genuine, irreducible Greek-level exegetical ambiguity (origin vs. interpretation) forces a translation decision the source text may not fully resolve; lower severity than items 1-4 only because both readings converge on the same doctrinal conclusion (divine, not human, authority over prophecy).

---

5. Summary Recommendations for Phase 1 Step 8 Carry-Forward

1. All eleven Critical-risk new terms already flagged in 08_core_glossary.md retain that status; this analysis provides the underlying gap/collision rationale for each and adds no new Critical designations beyond what the glossary already lists.
2. Items #1–#4 above (divine nature, morning star, repentance, carried-along) should receive priority ordering in theologian review queues ahead of the remaining Critical items, given the combination of doctrinal centrality and collision severity documented here.
3. The virtue-chain vocabulary (cnota, pobożność) should be flagged for a dedicated teaching sidebar in Phase 2/3 curriculum material distinguishing 2 Peter’s chain from the Thomistic catechism list — this is a pedagogical requirement beyond ordinary translator-note scope.
4. No additional missing-vocabulary items were identified beyond those already resolved by compound-phrase strategies in the glossary; all remaining gaps in this letter are collision (crowded-neighborhood) risks, not true lexical absences.

This document extends but does not alter the Romans baseline translation_memory.json and bible_term_registry.json. All findings above are already implemented in the 2 Peter core glossary and term registry supplied as prior outputs.