Linguistic Gap Analysis
Linguistic Gap Analysis — Ephesians (English/Koine Greek → Polish)
Purpose
This document executes Phase 1 Step 8 (Linguistic Gap Analysis) for the Ephesians curriculum, extending the baseline Romans Language Package without contradicting it. It identifies (1) a doctrine-by-doctrine vocabulary matrix, (2) genuinely missing vocabulary versus crowded semantic neighborhoods requiring lexical “fencing,” (3) transliteration-versus-paraphrase decisions for new terms, and (4) a ranked list of this letter’s highest-risk ambiguities. It draws on and cross-references the terms already logged in 08_core_glossary.md and the extended bible_term_registry.json; it does not duplicate their full entries but analyzes the gaps and collisions underlying those entries’ risk ratings.
Full-book coverage note: All six chapters of Ephesians were reviewed for this analysis. Chapters 1–3 (doctrinal exposition: election, redemption, mystery, church) and chapters 4–6 (practical exposition: unity, new self, household codes, armor of God) each contribute distinct vocabulary-gap and semantic-collision risk not present in Romans. No chapter is treated as out of scope; chapters contributing no new terms beyond Section A reuse (none — every chapter of Ephesians contributes at least one Section B term) are not applicable here.
Section 1 — Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix
| Doctrine | Available Polish Term(s) | Weaknesses / Gaps | Recommended Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Salvation by Grace through Faith (2:1-10; 1:7,13) | łaska, wiara, zbawienie, dar, uczynki, martwy/umarli, ożywił wraz z Chrystusem | ”Uczynki” spans both the rejected ground of salvation (2:9) and the affirmed fruit of salvation (2:10) within two verses — a single lexeme carrying opposite argumentative freight. Polish also lacks a compound verb for συζωοποιέω (“co-made-alive-with”); any single-verb rendering loses the “with Christ” union sense. | Retain “uczynki” in both verses but require a mandatory translator note distinguishing v.9 (excluded ground) from v.10 (fruit/purpose) at every occurrence — never merge into one flattened statement about “works.” Render συζωοποιέω periphrastically (“razem z Chrystusem ożywił/przywrócił do życia”) rather than search for a nonexistent single verb; never drop “razem/wraz.” |
| Election and Predestination in Christ (1:4-5,11) | wybranie, wybrał, przeznaczył, zamysł, postanowienie, (dobra) wola/upodobanie | ”Przeznaczył” (the standard Bible-tradition rendering of προορίζω) is lexically almost identical to vernacular “przeznaczenie/los,” which in contemporary Polish carries strong horoscope-and-fate connotations reinforced by daily-horoscope print/online culture. This is a direct, unavoidable collision, not merely a risk to monitor. | Never use “przeznaczenie” or “los” as nouns in doctrinal exposition. Always pair the verb “przeznaczył” with the phrase “z miłości” / “w miłości” (1:4b-5a) in the same sentence or immediately adjacent teaching text, so the loving, relational ground of the choice is inseparable from the verb itself. |
| The Church as the Body of Christ (1:22-23; 4:4,12,16; 5:23,30) | ciało, głowa, pełnia, kościół | ”Ciało” is the single Polish lexeme for (a) the ecclesial Body of Christ, (b) the Eucharistic “Ciało Pańskie/Ciało Chrystusa” spoken at every Mass and Communion service, and (c) the fallen-nature “flesh” sense (2:3). One word, three theologically distinct referents. “Głowa” (head) as applied to Christ over the church carries a source-of-life, nourishing-union sense (4:16, “joined and held together”) that the ordinary Polish anatomical/leadership sense of “głowa” does not automatically supply. | ”Ciało” must be retained (no viable alternative exists), but every occurrence in the ecclesial sense requires a disambiguating clause (“ciało, czyli kościół,” “ciało — wspólnota wierzących”) distinct from both Eucharistic and fallen-nature uses. For “głowa,” pair with the nourishing/life-giving content of 4:15-16 and 5:29 explicitly in teaching notes so the metaphor is not read as bare positional authority. |
| Unity of Jews and Gentiles in One New Humanity (2:11-22) | poganie, jeden nowy człowiek, mur (rozdzielający), wrogość, cudzoziemcy/przychodnie, społeczność Izraela, przepisy (Prawa) | “Poganie” over-translates ἔθνη’s neutral “nations/non-Jews” sense with the stronger literal meaning “pagans,” risking an implied residual contempt exactly where Ephesians argues the opposite. “Dogmat” is a tempting but false-friend rendering of δόγμα (2:15) — in Polish it means a fixed doctrinal formula, not a ceremonial regulation. | Retain “poganie” per baseline precedent (established across Romans and Ephesians usage) but require an explicit teaching gloss at 2:11-19 stating the term functions here as a group-identity label being welcomed, not a negative judgment. Never use “dogmat” for δόγμα in 2:15; use “przepisy (Prawa)” exclusively. |
| The Mystery of Christ Revealed (1:9; 3:3-9; 5:32; 6:19) | tajemnica, objawić/objawienie, wielka tajemnica | ”Tajemnica” is saturated in Polish Catholic devotional vocabulary (Tajemnice Różańca — the Mysteries of the Rosary; Tajemnica Eucharystii; Tajemnica Trójcy Świętej as an permanently-unfathomable-mystery sense) — a different semantic profile from Paul’s disclosure-oriented μυστήριον (a plan once hidden, now revealed). “Objawienie” similarly collides with the strong Polish devotional category of post-biblical private apparitions (Fatima; nationally, St. Faustina’s revelations of Divine Mercy). | Retain “tajemnica” and “objawienie” (no viable substitute exists, and the baseline’s own Romans package does not address this term family), but flag every Ephesians occurrence for a mandatory teaching note: Paul’s “tajemnica” is a specific, historically completed disclosure event, not a permanently unfathomable devotional category, and “objawienie” here is the closed apostolic revelation, not an open category of ongoing private revelation. |
| Spiritual Warfare and the Armor of God (6:10-20) | cała zbroja Boża, pas prawdy, pancerz sprawiedliwości, tarcza wiary, przyłbica zbawienia, miecz Ducha, Słowo Boże, władcy tego świata, złe duchy, walka/zmaganie | Polish folk-Catholic piety has a robust, well-populated vocabulary of protective sacred objects worn or carried (medalik, szkaplerz, poświęcony różaniec) that could pull “zbroja” toward a talisman reading rather than actively appropriated truth/righteousness/faith/salvation. Conversely, urbanized/secular register readers may flatten “władcy tego świata” and “złe duchy” into folklore or dismiss them as pre-modern imagery. | Consistently frame the armor with active verbs (ubierzcie się, weźmijcie, przypaszcie) rather than nominal/possessive framing that could read as “wearing a blessed object.” Teach 6:12’s cosmic powers as real, personal, already-defeated-in-principle beings (per 1:20-22), avoiding both folk-superstition flattening and rationalist dismissal — an explicit both/and framing note is required at every occurrence. |
| Household Codes and Christ-Centered Relationships (5:21-6:9) | poddanie się/bycie posłusznym, głowa, Zbawiciel, być posłusznym/czcić, wychowanie i pouczanie (Pańskie), niewolnicy/panowie | ”Poddanie się” (submission) sits at the center of three live, contested contemporary Polish discourses simultaneously: traditional complementarian catechesis, John Paul II’s “theology of the body” (Mulieris Dignitatem, reframing submission as mutual self-gift), and secular/feminist critique of submission language generally. “Panowie” for δοῦλος/κύριος (6:5-9) risks either sanitizing first-century slavery into a modern employer-employee relationship or, if left unglossed, appearing to endorse slavery. | Always render 5:21 (“submitting to one another”) and 5:22-24 (wife-to-husband) as distinct but connected verses, never merging 5:21’s mutuality into 5:22’s specific instruction or vice versa; flag every occurrence for mandatory theologian review per the doctrine risk registry. For 6:5-9, retain “niewolnicy/panowie” (not a modernized “pracownicy/pracodawcy” euphemism) accompanied by a mandatory historical-framing note, preserving the deliberate κύριος wordplay with Christ’s own supreme Pan-ship in 6:9. |
| Gifts for Building Up the Church (4:7-16) | dar, dary duchowe, ewangelista, pasterz, nauczyciel, przygotowanie/wyposażenie, dojrzały/dzieci | ”Ewangelista” in ordinary Polish usage overwhelmingly denotes the four Gospel-writers (“czterej Ewangeliści”), not an ongoing church ministry gift/office. “Pasterz” is simultaneously a title for Christ (“Dobry Pasterz”) and, in Catholic ecclesiology, for bishops and the Pope (“pasterz Kościoła”) — a narrower referent than Ephesians 4:11’s broader ministry-gift sense. | Require a disambiguating clause at 4:11 (“ewangelista — osoba obdarowana do głoszenia Ewangelii, a nie autor jednej z czterech Ewangelii”) and a teaching note that “pasterz” here names a Spirit-given ministry gift for building up all believers (4:12), not an exclusively hierarchical clerical office. |
| Walking in Newness of Life (2:10; 4:17-24; 5:1-20) | postępować/chodzić (w nowości życia), stary człowiek/nowy człowiek, odnowienie, świątobliwość, naśladowca, światło/ciemność, napełnieni Duchem | ”Odnowienie” (renewal) and especially “napełnieni Duchem” (filled with the Spirit) resonate strongly — an asset and a risk simultaneously — with Poland’s Catholic Charismatic Renewal movement, itself named “Odnowa w Duchu Świętym.” Readers may import specific movement-associated expectations (manifestations, prayer meetings) not addressed by Ephesians’ own text. “Świątobliwość” shares a root with “świętość/święci,” risking a canonized-sainthood association exactly where the text describes ordinary Christian character. | Anchor “napełnieni Duchem” and “odnowienie” tightly to the passage’s own stated content (worship, thanksgiving, mutual submission, mind renewal) rather than to movement-specific external expectations; anchor “świątobliwość” explicitly to every believer’s new-self character, with a note distinguishing it from canonized sainthood per the baseline’s “święci” caution. |
Section 2 — Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods
2A. Genuinely Missing Vocabulary (no adequate single Polish lexeme exists)
These are concepts for which Polish has no ready-made single word or fixed idiom, requiring periphrasis, compound construction, or a coined/extended phrase, distinct from Section 2B’s problem of too many competing associations for an existing word.
| Concept | Greek | Gap | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Co-vivification with Christ | συζωοποιέω (2:5) | No single Polish verb conveys “made alive together with” as one compound act; ordinary “ożywił” (revived) loses the union-with-Christ dimension entirely. | Periphrastic: “razem z Chrystusem ożywił / przywrócił do życia.” Never abbreviate to a single verb in doctrinal contexts. |
| Full-parity σύν- compounds | συγκληρονόμος, σύσσωμος, συμμέτοχος (3:6) | Polish morphology does not productively stack a “co-/fellow-” prefix onto nouns as freely as Greek; natural Polish would default to a flatter “również otrzymują” losing the emphatic equal-participation force. | Coined compounds using “współ-”: współdziedzice, współczłonkowie ciała, współuczestnicy — already adopted in Section B; must be used consistently, not varied for stylistic reasons. |
| Heavenly places (as present spiritual arena, not final-destination heaven) | ἐπουράνιος (1:20; 2:6; 3:10; 6:12) | “Niebo” defaults to eschatological final heaven in ordinary Polish religious usage; there is no vernacular equivalent for a present, contested spiritual realm. | Use “okręgi niebieskie / sfery niebiańskie” consistently across all four occurrences; supply a standing teaching note explaining this is not synonymous with “niebo” as final destination. |
| Complete-uniform sense of πανοπλία | πανοπλία (6:11,13) | “Zbroja” (armor) in Polish typically evokes a single suit of medieval plate armor as static equipment, not the full soldier’s combat kit (offensive and defensive) Paul describes piece by piece. | Retain “cała zbroja Boża” but ensure catechetical materials walk through each of the six components individually (6:14-17) so the composite, active-equipping sense is not lost to a single static noun. |
| Enthronement co-seating | συγκαθίζω (2:6) | No single Polish verb captures “seated together with” in one enthronement act; a literal translation risks sounding like mere physical proximity rather than shared royal status. | ”Wraz z Nim posadził” — retain “wraz z Nim,” never drop it, and pair with teaching content on shared authority/rest, not simply location. |
| Governing “age” as a moral-spiritual order, not a time period | αἰών (2:2) | “Wiek” in ordinary Polish is purely chronological (a person’s age, a century); it carries no built-in sense of a governing worldview or spirit of an era. | Render contextually as “wiek (tego świata)” with a mandatory gloss (“duch/porządek tego świata”) rather than “wiek” alone. |
2B. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods Requiring Fencing
These are cases where a serviceable Polish word exists and must be used (per baseline precedent or lack of a better alternative), but that word is already heavily populated with other, non-Pauline associations in Polish religious and cultural discourse. Each requires an explicit “fence” — a standing disambiguation rule applied at every occurrence.
| Polish Term | Ephesians Sense(s) | Competing/Crowding Sense(s) in Polish Culture | Fence |
|---|---|---|---|
| ciało | Ecclesial Body of Christ (1:23; 4:4,12,16; 5:23,30); fallen “flesh” nature (2:3) | Eucharistic “Ciało Pańskie / Ciało Chrystusa” spoken at every Mass/Communion liturgy — the single most frequent liturgical use of this word in Polish religious life | Always attach a disambiguating clause to the ecclesial sense (“ciało, to znaczy kościół/wspólnota wierzących”) and a separate disambiguating clause to the fallen-nature sense (“ciało w znaczeniu grzesznej natury”) — never leave “ciało” unglossed in doctrinal teaching text. |
| tajemnica | God’s historically disclosed redemptive plan (1:9; 3:3-9; 6:19); Christ-church marriage typology (5:32) | Tajemnice Różańca (Mysteries of the Rosary); Tajemnica Eucharystii; general devotional “unfathomable mystery” register | Standing note: Paul’s “tajemnica” is a specific, disclosed, historically completed plan, not a permanently unfathomable devotional category — required at every occurrence, especially 5:32 where the Vulgate’s “sacramentum” gives this collision unusual historical depth. |
| głowa | Christ’s headship over the church (1:22; 4:15); husband’s headship of wife (5:23) | Ordinary Polish “głowa rodziny” (head of the household) — a culturally live, often traditionalist-inflected phrase independent of biblical exegesis | Anchor every occurrence to Paul’s own defining content: nourishing, life-giving union (4:15-16; 5:29) and self-sacrificial love (5:25) — never allow the metaphor to stand alone without this content. |
| Pan | Christ’s exclusive, supreme Lordship (baseline Critical, very frequent throughout); household “master” in the slave-master relationship (6:5,9); ordinary polite address “Pan/Pani” (Mr./Mrs., unrelated register) | The three senses are lexically identical and highly frequent in ordinary Polish speech | The household sense (6:5,9) must always carry an explicit note that Paul deliberately plays on this same word to relativize human masters under Christ’s own ultimate Pan-ship (6:9) — never leave the two senses to be inferred silently from context alone. |
| objawienie | Completed apostolic disclosure of the mystery of Christ (3:3,5) | Marian and saint apparitions (Fatima; within Poland, the Divine Mercy revelations associated with St. Faustina Kowalska) | Standing note distinguishing Ephesians’ closed, apostolic-era revelation from any ongoing category of private mystical disclosure. |
| świątynia | The church corporately as God’s dwelling (2:20-21) | Physical church buildings, major pilgrimage basilicas (e.g. Jasna Góra) | Explicit note: the referent is the people of God collectively, not a building — required given how strongly “świątynia” evokes physical sacred architecture in Polish religious geography. |
| powołanie / powołany | The universal call of every believer to unity and holy conduct (4:1,4) | Powołanie kapłańskie/zakonne — priesthood or religious-life vocation, the dominant cultural referent (baseline Critical caution, directly inherited) | Explicit context every occurrence: “powołanie, do którego zostaliście powołani” (4:1) addresses the whole congregation, not a clerical or religious-life subset. |
| święci | All believers, corporate sainthood (1:1,15,18; 2:19; 3:8,18; 4:12; 5:3; 6:18 — far more frequent in Ephesians than in Romans) | Canonized/venerated saints (baseline Critical caution, directly inherited, now amplified by Ephesians’ sheer frequency of use) | Mandatory clarifying note at every occurrence, per baseline; given the frequency increase in Ephesians, consider a single standing footnote referenced by number rather than restating in full each time, to avoid teaching-text fatigue while preserving the safeguard. |
| poddanie się | Mutual submission among believers (5:21); wife’s specific submission to husband (5:22-24) | Contemporary Polish public discourse spanning traditional catechesis, JPII’s “theology of the body,” and secular/feminist critique | Always present 5:21 and 5:22-24 together, never in isolation; never let the specific instruction be read as detached from its explicitly mutual and Christ-patterned frame (5:25-33). |
| ofiara | Christ’s own historical, once-for-all self-giving death (5:2) | “Ofiara Mszy Świętej” — the Mass as sacrifice, a historically contested Catholic-Protestant theological point | Explicit note that this verse describes Christ’s completed, historical self-giving at the cross, without adjudicating the Eucharistic-sacrifice debate in either direction. |
| odnowienie / napełnieni Duchem | Ongoing renewal of the mind (4:23); Spirit-empowered life (5:18) | “Odnowa w Duchu Świętym” — the named Catholic Charismatic Renewal movement, with its own specific worship practices and expectations | Anchor to the passage’s own stated content (worship, thanksgiving, mutual submission) rather than to movement-specific external expectations not addressed by the text. |
| dogmat (rejected) vs. przepisy (Prawa) (adopted) | Ceremonial regulations of the Mosaic Law (2:15, δόγμα) | “Dogmat” — a fixed doctrinal formula (e.g. Marian dogmas: Immaculate Conception, Assumption) | Never use “dogmat” for δόγμα in this verse; “przepisy (Prawa)” is the fenced, exclusive rendering. |
| przeznaczył | God’s purposeful, loving predetermination (1:5,11) | “Przeznaczenie / los” — fatalistic, quasi-astrological vernacular destiny language, reinforced by everyday horoscope culture | Never use the noun “przeznaczenie” in doctrinal exposition; always pair the verb “przeznaczył” with “z miłości” (1:4b-5a) in the same breath. |
| pełnia | Christ’s/the church’s fullness (1:23; 3:19; 4:13) | Polish New Age, wellness, and self-actualization discourse’s abstract “pełnia” (cosmic fullness, personal wholeness) | Anchor tightly to the Christ/church referent every time; never allow the term to stand as an abstract noun without its governing genitive (fullness of Christ, of him who fills all in all). |
Section 3 — Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions
| Term | Greek | Decision | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abba | Ἀββά | Transliterate, paired with “Ojcze” | Already established in the Romans baseline (8:15) and directly recurring in Ephesians’ theological background (adoption, 1:5); no reason to depart from precedent. |
| Amen / Alleluja | Ἀμήν / Ἀλληλουϊά | Transliterate | Standard, unambiguous, established Polish Bible-tradition forms (used at doxological close, e.g. Ephesians 3:21, 6:24). |
| Mystērion | μυστήριον | Paraphrase (“tajemnica”), NOT transliterate | A transliteration (“mysterion”) would be unintelligible to lay Polish readers and would forfeit the term’s connection to the church’s own devotional vocabulary, which — despite its collision risk (see Section 2B) — is precisely the vocabulary this curriculum must correct rather than replace. The Vulgate’s “sacramentum” (5:32) is noted as historical background only; never substituted for “tajemnica.” |
| Kephalē | κεφαλή | Paraphrase (“głowa”) | No transliteration is possible for a common-noun metaphor; the risk is content-import (culturally supplied authoritarian meaning), not lexical unfamiliarity, so the mitigation is anchoring content (Section 2B), not transliteration. |
| Panoplia tou theou | πανοπλία τοῦ θεοῦ | Paraphrase (“cała zbroja Boża”) | A military-metaphor compound with a natural, well-attested Polish equivalent; transliteration would be both unintelligible and unnecessary. |
| Doulos / kyrios (household) | δοῦλος / κύριος | Paraphrase (“niewolnicy / panowie”), historically framed, NOT modernized | Modern-sounding alternatives (“pracownicy/pracodawcy” — employees/employers) risk erasing the first-century chattel-slavery reality Paul is actually addressing and obscuring the deliberate κύριος wordplay; retain the historical term with a mandatory framing note rather than either transliterating (unintelligible) or modernizing without comment (historically misleading). |
| Kosmokratōr | κοσμοκράτωρ | Paraphrase (“władcy tego świata [tej ciemności]“) | A transliterated “kosmokrator” would sound like foreign jargon disconnected from the passage’s real-world spiritual seriousness; paraphrase keeps the concept accessible while the accompanying note prevents folk-superstition flattening. |
| Palē | πάλη | Paraphrase (“walka / zmaganie”), not “wojna" | "Wojna” (war) is too generic and loses the close, personal, wrestling-match intensity of the Greek image; a periphrastic pairing preserves nuance without needing a loanword. |
| Charis, pistis, sōtēria, dikaiosynē, ekklēsia, etc. | (established baseline terms) | Reuse exactly, no new transliteration decision | These terms were already settled in the Romans baseline; Ephesians introduces no new transliteration question for them, only new collocations (e.g. “breastplate of righteousness,” “shield of faith”) which inherit the base term’s existing risk tier. |
| Arrabōn | ἀρραβών | Paraphrase (“rękojmia”), not a banking loanword (“depozyt,” “zaliczka”) | Modern commercial-finance loanwords would flatten the legal-guarantee force into a transactional, this-worldly register inconsistent with the doctrinal weight of “the Spirit as guarantee of our inheritance.” |
| Sphragizō | σφραγίζω | Paraphrase (“opieczętowani”) | A concrete, well-attested Polish verb exists; no transliteration needed, but requires the fencing note distancing it from Confirmation/bierzmowanie sacramental sealing imagery (see baseline glossary). |
General transliteration principle for this letter: Ephesians introduces no proper names or technical terms requiring new transliteration decisions beyond what the Romans baseline already established (Jezus, Chrystus, Paweł, Abba, Amen, Alleluja). Every new Section B term in this curriculum is a paraphrase decision, because Ephesians’ distinctive vocabulary (mystery, fullness, armor, household codes, cosmic powers) consists of common nouns and metaphors, not proper names or liturgical formulae — the translation challenge here is semantic fencing of existing Polish words, not transliteration of unfamiliar ones.
Section 4 — Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities in Ephesians
Ranked by combined severity (doctrinal centrality × collision intensity with dominant Polish religious culture), for Phase 2 review-routing prioritization.
-
σῶμα / ciało — ecclesial Body of Christ vs. Eucharistic “Ciało Pańskie” vs. fallen “flesh” (2:3; 1:23; 4:4,12,16; 5:23,30). The single highest-density collision in the letter: one Polish word carries three theologically load-bearing, mutually distinct referents, one of them (Eucharistic) spoken aloud at every Mass. Mitigation: mandatory disambiguating clause at every occurrence; theologian review required (Critical).
-
μυστήριον μέγα / “wielka tajemnica” and the Vulgate sacramentum root (5:32). Uniquely dangerous because the historical linguistic connection to Catholic sacramental marriage theology is real, not merely a superficial false-friend — making the fence harder to maintain than a simple false-friend caution. Mitigation: follow modern Biblia Tysiąclecia’s own “tajemnica,” note the Vulgate connection as background only; theologian review required (Critical).
-
προορίζω / przeznaczył — predestination vs. horoscope-fatalism vernacular (1:5,11). Ephesians uses this verb twice within eleven verses, more concentrated than anywhere in Romans, in the letter’s opening doxology — readers’ very first theological impression of the letter is at stake. Mitigation: mandatory “z miłości” pairing every occurrence; theologian review required (Critical).
-
ὑποτάσσω / poddanie się — mutual submission vs. asymmetric wife-to-husband instruction (5:21-33). The doctrine most likely to be either weaponized (isolated 5:22-24 without 5:21/5:25-33) or dismissed outright by different segments of the mixed Catholic/Evangelical/secular-adjacent audience. Mitigation: never present 5:21-24 without 5:25-33 in the same teaching unit; theologian review required (Critical).
-
κεφαλή / głowa — headship content risk (1:22; 4:15; 5:23). Distinct from #4 but compounding it: the metaphor itself, detached from Paul’s self-giving-love content, readily absorbs generic cultural “head of household” authoritarian content. Mitigation: mandatory anchoring to 4:15-16 and 5:25-30 content; theologian review required (Critical).
-
ἔργα / uczynki — excluded ground (2:9) vs. affirmed fruit (2:10) within two verses. The core passage’s central rhetorical turn depends on readers not collapsing these into one flattened statement about “works,” a distinction made harder by Polish Catholic catechesis’s well-developed positive theology of “uczynki miłosierdzia.” Mitigation: mandatory paired-verse translator note; theologian review required (Critical, inherited from baseline imputed-righteousness caution).
-
πανοπλία τοῦ θεοῦ / cała zbroja Boża — armor vs. amulet (6:11,13). Risk is not lexical but devotional-practice collision: Polish folk-Catholic piety’s genuine, widespread practice of wearing/carrying blessed protective objects (medalik, szkaplerz) sits directly adjacent to this passage’s central image. Mitigation: active-verb framing (put on, take up) rather than possessive/nominal framing; theologian review required (Critical).
-
κλῆσις/κλητός / powołanie — universal call vs. priesthood-only default (4:1,4). Ephesians 4:1’s “the calling to which you have been called” is addressed to the whole congregation as the hinge verse opening the letter’s entire second half; a priesthood-default misreading would misdirect the practical application of chapters 4-6. Mitigation: explicit context every occurrence (High, inherited from baseline).
-
ἅγιοι / święci — corporate sainthood vs. canonized saints (1:1,15,18; 2:19; 3:8,18; 4:12; 5:3; 6:18). Same baseline Critical caution as Romans, but Ephesians’ occurrence density is substantially higher, increasing cumulative exposure risk across a single letter. Mitigation: mandatory clarifying note at every occurrence, with a standing footnote strategy considered for Phase 2 efficiency (Critical, inherited).
-
ἀποκάλυψις / objawienie — closed apostolic revelation vs. private apparition tradition (3:3,5). Risk is compounded in Poland specifically by the strong national devotional prominence of the Divine Mercy revelations (St. Faustina Kowalska), giving “objawienie” an unusually vivid competing referent. Mitigation: explicit note distinguishing closed apostolic revelation from ongoing private revelation category (High).
-
δόγμα / przepisy vs. dogmat — false-friend risk (2:15). Lower doctrinal centrality than the above but a clean, avoidable translation error if the false friend “dogmat” is used even once; consistency across Phase 2 workers is the operative risk. Mitigation: absolute prohibition on “dogmat” for this sense (Medium-High).
-
πλήρωμα / pełnia — Christ-centered fullness vs. New Age “cosmic fullness” (1:23; 3:19; 4:13). Risk is drift rather than outright error: the term is correct, but its increasingly secular wellness-culture resonance in urban Polish discourse could allow readers to import a self-actualization frame foreign to the text. Mitigation: never use without its governing genitive/referent (High).
-
δοῦλος/κύριος wordplay — household slavery and Christ’s Lordship (6:5-9). Risk of either sanitizing first-century slavery through modernized labor-relations vocabulary or, if left unglossed, of the passage reading as tacit endorsement of slavery. Mitigation: mandatory historical-framing note preserving the κύριος wordplay (High).
-
πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας / κοσμοκράτωρ — cosmic evil vs. folk superstition (6:12). Risk runs in both directions simultaneously — folk-flattening into vague “zły urok” superstition on one hand, rationalist dismissal on the other — requiring a note that actively resists both poles rather than a single corrective. Mitigation: explicit both/and framing note (High).
-
ἔθνη / poganie — negative-connotation overstatement in a welcoming argument (2:11; 3:1,6,8; 4:17). Lower risk than the above because it is an inherited, already-documented baseline caution, but Ephesians’ rhetorical stakes (actively welcoming this group) make overstatement of the term’s built-in negative charge more consequential here than in Romans. Mitigation: explicit teaching gloss at 2:11-19 (Medium).
This analysis extends, and does not contradict, the baseline Romans translation_memory.json (v1), bible_term_registry.json, and doctrine_risk_registry.json, and the Ephesians 08_core_glossary.md. All fencing rules and transliteration decisions recorded here must be carried forward into the Ephesians extensions of bible_term_registry.json and doctrine_risk_registry.json in subsequent Phase 1 steps.