Linguistic Gap Analysis

Linguistic Gap Analysis — Mark 1–16

Destination Language: Portuguese

Purpose and Method

This document executes Phase 1 Step 8 of the TRI pipeline for the Gospel of Mark, destination language Portuguese. It identifies where the established Romans Language Package (translation_memory.json, bible_term_registry.json) is sufficient as-is, where it is insufficient and new vocabulary decisions are required, and where existing Portuguese theological vocabulary sits inside a crowded semantic neighborhood — a lexical space already claimed, in whole or in part, by Brazil’s Kardecist Spiritist, Afro-Brazilian Candomblé/Umbanda, and popular Catholic traditions.

Coverage is full-book: every chapter of Mark (1–16) has been swept for new load-bearing vocabulary. Chapters that introduce no new lexical gap beyond terms already anchored by the baseline or noted elsewhere in this analysis are explicitly marked “reviewed, no new gap” rather than omitted, per the full-coverage mandate. The core passage, Mark 10:35–45, is the theological anchor of the curriculum’s eight doctrines and receives the most concentrated analysis, but it is not treated as the boundary of scope.

The eight curriculum doctrines analyzed here are:

Jesus as the Suffering Servant and Son of God
The Kingdom of God Breaking In
Faith and Discipleship amid Fear
The Necessity of the Cross
Servanthood versus Worldly Greatness
The Messianic Secret
Jesus’ Authority over Sickness, Sin, and Nature
The Ransom for Many

Part 1 — Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

Doctrine	Available Portuguese Terms	Weaknesses	Recommended Strategy
1. Jesus as the Suffering Servant and Son of God	Filho de Deus (baseline, reused exactly); Filho do Homem (new); Messias (baseline, reused); Servo (generic, no fixed compound yet)	No existing fixed Portuguese phrase carries the Isaiah 42/49/53 “Suffering Servant” background automatically; “Servo” alone reads as a generic domestic/social role, not a technical OT title. Kardecism’s competing Christology (“o espírito mais evoluído”) pressures “Messias” and can quietly absorb “Servo” into a moral-exemplar reading.	Fix a compound phrase, “Servo Sofredor” (with capital letters signaling technical-title status), for teaching-note use whenever Isaiah’s Servant background is invoked (esp. around 10:45). Keep Filho de Deus and Filho do Homem lexically non-interchangeable per the Part A/registry note; never allow “Servo Sofredor” to substitute for either title, only to supplement them.
2. The Kingdom of God Breaking In	reino de Deus (baseline, reused exactly); chegou/está próximo (for ἤγγικεν)	“Reino de Deus” risks being heard through the institutional-Catholic sense of a kingdom advanced by the Church as organization, or through a nationalist/political register common in some Brazilian civil-religious rhetoric. The “breaking in” dynamism of ἤγγικεν/ἐγγύς is easily flattened to a static “está próximo,” losing the sense of active in-breaking.	Retain baseline “reino de Deus.” Pair 1:15 specifically with the stronger active verb “chegou” (has arrived) rather than only “está próximo,” and require a teaching note on the already/not-yet tension (4:26-32’s seed-growth parables against 9:1’s imminence claim) so it is not read as either purely future or purely institutional.
3. Faith and Discipleship amid Fear	fé (baseline, reused); seguir (ἀκολουθέω, new — “to follow”); discipulado (new, no Greek single-word anchor); medo/temor (φόβος/φοβέομαι family)	No baseline term exists for the disciple-following pattern that structures the whole Gospel (1:17-20; 8:34; 10:21, 28, 52). “Medo”/“temor” must be split contextually: reverential awe before divine power (4:41; 9:6) versus ordinary human fear/cowardice (10:32; 16:8) — collapsing both to one register loses Mark’s deliberate ambivalence about fear as both appropriate and an obstacle to faith.	Add “seguir (a Jesus)” as a fixed discipleship-following phrase (Medium risk). Split fear vocabulary: “temor” for reverential awe at divine power, “medo” for ordinary anxiety/cowardice that faith must overcome; flag every occurrence for native speaker review to confirm the correct register is chosen.
4. The Necessity of the Cross	cruz / crucificar (baseline-consistent, new to registry); é necessário que (δεῖ, new)	“Cruz” is culturally over-familiar in Brazil as decorative jewelry, tattoo motif, and generic hardship metaphor (“a cruz que carrego” = “my burden in life”), which can drain the term of its historical, substitutionary specificity. “É necessário que” risks being read as impersonal inevitability or, worse, assimilated to a Kardecist karmic-necessity register (“tinha que acontecer,” a fatalistic idiom with folk-karmic overtones).	Retain “cruz”/“crucificar” as historical-event vocabulary and require accompanying teaching material (never lexical softening) to recover the substitutionary, once-for-all sense against the decorative/idiomatic drift. Render δεῖ as “é necessário que” and explicitly root it in the Father’s saving plan and Scripture’s fulfillment (9:12), never as bare inevitability.
5. Servanthood versus Worldly Greatness	servo/servir (διάκονος, new); escravo (δοῦλος, new); dominar (κατακυριεύω, new); grande (μέγας, new)	Mark’s deliberate diakonos→doulos escalation (10:43-44) has no single natural Portuguese escalation; flattening both to “servo” erases the intensification. “Escravo” carries acute, non-optional cultural weight given Brazil’s history as the largest destination of the transatlantic slave trade in the Americas — under-handling this pastorally risks real harm; over-softening it lexically loses Mark’s rhetorical force.	Preserve the escalation: “servo” for διάκονος, “escravo” for δοῦλος (per registry). Mandatory human theologian and pastoral-sensitivity review on every occurrence of “escravo” in Mark 10:44, with accompanying teaching material that names the cultural weight directly rather than avoiding it. Keep “dominar” strictly non-Senhor-cognate (see Part 2 below).
6. The Messianic Secret	ordenou-lhes severamente que não dissessem a ninguém (fixed formula, new); Messias (baseline, reused)	Without a consistently recognizable formula, the seven occurrences (1:34, 44; 3:12; 5:43; 7:36; 8:30; 9:9) can each be independently translated by different segment-workers, obscuring the pattern as a deliberate narrative motif rather than incidental repetition, and inviting readers to see inconsistency (public miracles yet secrecy demands) rather than a theological strategy against premature triumphalist misunderstanding.	Fix one exact formula across all seven occurrences (already recorded in the term registry) and require a standalone teaching note (not embedded per-verse) explaining the motif’s purpose once, applicable to every recurrence.
7. Jesus’ Authority over Sickness, Sin, and Nature	autoridade (ἐξουσία, new); curar (θεραπεύω, new); espírito imundo / demônio (new); autoridade para perdoar pecados (new)	Brazil’s religious marketplace is unusually crowded on exactly this doctrine: Kardecism (mediumship, “cura espiritual” through discarnate spirit intervention), Candomblé/Umbanda (“cura” through incorporated orixás/spirit guides), and popular Pentecostal “libertação”/deliverance vocabulary all use overlapping surface vocabulary (“cura,” “libertação,” “autoridade espiritual”) for theologically incompatible frameworks.	Tie “curar” and “autoridade” explicitly, in every occurrence’s teaching material, to Christ’s unique, non-repeatable authority and the kingdom’s arrival — never to a generic “poder espiritual” category that could be read as one instance among competing Brazilian “cura espiritual” traditions. Keep “autoridade” (legitimate) lexically walled off from “dominar” (illegitimate) per doctrine 5 above.
8. The Ransom for Many	resgate (λύτρον, new); em lugar de muitos (ἀντὶ πολλῶν, new); vida (ψυχή, new); dar a sua vida (new)	“Resgate” has a strong, dominant secular register in contemporary Brazilian Portuguese — kidnapping ransom payments (a real and frequently reported crime category) and financial “resgate de investimento” (withdrawing/redeeming an investment) are both far more common everyday uses than the theological sense, risking a transactional or even crime-adjacent first association. “Por muitos” (a live alternative in the Almeida tradition) is ambiguous between substitution and mere benefit.	Retain “resgate” (no better single-word alternative exists) but require every occurrence to carry an explanatory teaching note distinguishing it from both the criminal-ransom and investment-redemption senses, and from Kardecist karmic self-payment. Prefer “em lugar de muitos” over “por muitos” to preserve ἀντί’s substitutionary force explicitly; flag any use of “por muitos” for mandatory theologian review.

Part 2 — Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods

2.1 Missing Vocabulary (no baseline anchor; genuinely new terms required)

The Romans baseline Language Package, built for an epistle with a soteriological argument, does not anchor a substantial cluster of terms load-bearing in Mark’s narrative-Gospel genre. These require fresh Portuguese renderings and risk assignments (now recorded in the accompanying core glossary and term registry):

Son of Man (Filho do Homem) — Critical
ransom / for many (resgate / em lugar de muitos) — Critical
soul-life (vida/alma, ψυχή) — Critical
unclean spirit / demon (espírito imundo / demônio) — Critical
blasphemy against the Holy Spirit — Critical
necessity of the cross (é necessário que, δεῖ) — Critical
lord it over (dominar, κατακυριεύω) — Critical
slave (escravo, δοῦλος) — Critical
“I am” divine self-disclosure (Eu sou, ἐγώ εἰμι) — Critical
cross/crucify (cruz/crucificar) — Critical
repentance (arrependimento) — High
authority (autoridade, ἐξουσία) — High
authority to forgive sins — High
baptism (metaphorical extension) — High
Messianic Secret formula — High
Gehenna/hell (inferno) — High
transfigured (transfigurar-se) — High
servant (servo, διάκονος) — High
false christs (falsos messias) — High
textual note, longer ending (16:9-20) — High (procedural)
to heal (curar); to save/be made well (salvar/curar); mystery of the kingdom; clean/unclean; divorce; Hosanna; watch/be alert; Passover; Corban; Ephphatha; Talitha cumi; Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani; temple veil; Legion; David’s-Lord riddle; widow’s mite; all creation; tribulation; Beelzebul/Satan — Medium
Teacher/Rabbi; parable; cup; great/greatness; first/last; commandment; leprosy; adultery; Elijah/Moses; house of prayer — Low

Full definitions, rejected alternatives, and doctrinal notes for each are recorded in 08_core_glossary.md Part B and bible_term_registry.json.

2.2 Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods Requiring Fencing

Unlike missing vocabulary, these are cases where a perfectly good Portuguese word already exists and will be used, but that word’s semantic territory in contemporary Brazilian religious culture is already substantially occupied by a rival tradition. Fencing means the translation must pair the term with explicit teaching notes drawing a boundary, not merely choose a different word (often no better word exists).

Portuguese term	Competing occupant of the semantic space	Fencing requirement
encarnação / encarnar	Kardecism’s everyday term for a spirit’s routine, repeatable embodiment across successive lives	Not a high-frequency lexical item in Mark itself (Mark has no direct “Word became flesh” statement), but underlies the Son of God/Son of Man material throughout (1:11; 9:7; 14:61-62) whenever Christ’s assumption of humanity is taught. Never use “encarnação” for Christ’s unique humanity without the baseline’s explicit once-for-all/non-repeating distinction.
alma / espírito	Kardecism’s “espírito” — a survives-death, evolving spirit-principle that migrates across bodies	ψυχή contexts (8:35-37; 10:45; 12:30) must default to “vida” rather than “alma” wherever the whole-self, this-life-decisive sense is intended, precisely to avoid triggering the “espírito” reincarnation association.
cura / cura espiritual	Kardecist mediumistic healing; Candomblé/Umbanda incorporation-based healing; folk-Catholic healing shrines	Every healing narrative (1:29-34, 40-45; 2:1-12; 5:21-43; 7:24-37; 8:22-26; 9:14-29; 10:46-52) must tie “curar” explicitly to Christ’s unique, non-repeatable authority and kingdom-arrival significance in accompanying teaching notes, not left as an unqualified “cura” that a reader could file under any of Brazil’s competing healing traditions.
espírito imundo / demônio vs. espíritos guias / orixás	Kardecism (morally evolving discarnate spirits, not fixed as malevolent) and Candomblé/Umbanda (venerated, ritually incorporated spirits/orixás)	Mark’s binary of holy vs. unclean spirits under Christ’s absolute defeating authority must never be assimilated to a morally ambivalent or “management-of-spirits” framework. See also “Beelzebul/Satan” (3:22-27), which reinforces the stark two-kingdoms structure.
mestre	”Mestre espiritual” as an independent, widely used honorific in Kardecist and Umbanda contexts for spiritual guides/teachers	Low risk when clearly addressed to Jesus in narrative context (10:35 and throughout); flag only if a teaching document isolates the title from its narrative anchor.
resgate	Secular crime-ransom and financial-redemption registers (see Part 1, doctrine 8)	See doctrine 8 strategy above; mandatory explanatory note on every occurrence.
servo / escravo	Brazil’s own slavery history; no rival “spiritual” occupant, but acute socio-cultural sensitivity	See doctrine 5 strategy above; mandatory pastoral-sensitivity handling, not lexical softening.
dominar (vs. Senhor)	Shares a root with the baseline’s Critical “Senhor” (κύριος) term	Absolute fencing required: never render κατακυριεύω with any Senhor-cognate form (see registry `lord_it_over` entry). This is not a rival-tradition collision but an internal-Portuguese homonymic risk unique to how Mark 10:42 plays against 10:44-45.
mistério	Esoteric/occult “mistérios” vocabulary current in Kardecist and New Age–adjacent Brazilian usage	”Mistério do reino” (4:11) must be taught as revealed, particular, Christ-centered disclosure, not hidden knowledge accessible through special initiation or mediumship.
inferno	Kardecism’s explicit doctrinal denial of a literal eternal hell, replaced by temporary purificatory inter-incarnation states	Gehenna material (9:43-48) requires direct doctrinal contrast, not silent translation.
transfigurar-se	New Age/Spiritist “evolução de consciência” or “ascensão espiritual” framings	9:2-8 must be taught as a unique historical disclosure of Christ’s own unchanging divine glory, not a template for universal human spiritual evolution.
Páscoa	Heavily secularized modern Brazilian “Easter” (chocolate eggs, bunny imagery)	14:1, 12-16 requires explicit recovery of the Exodus/Passover-lamb background; the term alone will not carry it in a general readership.
santos (cross-document consistency note)	Popular Catholic veneration of canonized figures (baseline Critical risk, inherited from Romans)	Mark itself makes minimal direct use of ἅγιοι as a corporate title, but any accompanying curriculum material referencing “believers as saints” for cross-curriculum consistency must carry the same explanatory note fixed in the Romans baseline.

Part 3 — Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions

Mark preserves more untranslated Aramaic/Hebrew material than any other Gospel, creating a distinct category of decisions not present in the Romans baseline (which only needed to decide “Abba”).

Term	Original	Decision	Rationale
Abba	אַבָּא	Transliterate + pair with “Pai” (“Aba, Pai”)	Already fixed by the Romans baseline (Rom 8:15) with Mark 14:36 as its narrative source; reuse exactly, no new decision required.
Talitha cumi	Ταλιθὰ κούμ	Transliterate (“Talitá cumi”) + Portuguese gloss (“Levanta-te, menina”)	Follows the Abba/Pai precedent exactly; preserves the intimacy and historicity of Jesus’ actual spoken words while ensuring comprehension.
Ephphatha	Ἐφφαθά	Transliterate (“Efatá”) + gloss (“Abre-te”)	Same principle as Talitha cumi; a short, memorable preserved command benefits from retention.
Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani	Ἐλωΐ Ἐλωΐ λεμὰ σαβαχθανί	Transliterate (“Eloí, Eloí, lemá sabactâni”) + gloss, cross-referenced to Psalm 22:1	The cry’s force depends on it being heard as genuine, historically spoken words of dereliction quoting Scripture; paraphrasing away the Aramaic would flatten this to generic narrated despair and weaken the ransom/substitution theology it supports.
Corban	קרבן / κορβᾶν	Transliterate (“corbã”) + gloss	Established practice for preserved Semitic loanwords in Portuguese Bible tradition (cf. “Corbã” in ARA marginal notes); paraphrasing (“uma oferta dedicada”) alone would lose the technical, legally-binding vow-formula sense central to Jesus’ critique in 7:11.
Hosanna	הוֹשַׁע נָא / ὡσαννά	Transliterate (“Hosana”), established loanword, no gloss required	Already a familiar liturgical loanword across Portuguese Christian traditions (Catholic and Protestant); paraphrase would sound stilted. Requires a background note (Davidic-kingdom, Psalm 118) rather than a lexical gloss.
Legion	Λεγιών	Transliterate as proper name (“Legião”), no gloss required	Functions as a self-naming proper noun in the narrative (5:9); the number-scale meaning (a Roman military unit) is supplied by teaching notes, not by translation choice.
Gehenna	γέεννα	Paraphrase (“inferno”) + footnote on Gehenna’s origin, NOT bare transliteration	Unlike the other Aramaic phrases above, γέεννα functions in Greek already as a loanword-turned-common-noun for final judgment; the established Portuguese Bible tradition (Almeida) renders it “inferno,” not “Geena.” Preserve that convention but supply the footnote given the direct Kardecist doctrinal collision (Part 2 above).
”I am” (ἐγώ εἰμι)	ἐγώ εἰμι	Paraphrase (“Eu sou”) + mandatory theological annotation, NOT transliteration	This is Greek, not preserved foreign speech, so transliteration is not applicable; the risk is under-annotation, since the literal Portuguese translation alone cannot convey the Exodus 3:14/Isaiah divine-self-disclosure resonance without an explicit teaching note.
Passover	πάσχα	Paraphrase using the established equivalent (“Páscoa”), not transliteration	A fully naturalized Portuguese term exists and is theologically continuous (unlike Gehenna, no doctrinal collision from the word itself); risk lies entirely in secularized cultural association (Part 2 above), not in lexical choice.
Rabbi / Teacher	Ῥαββί / Διδάσκαλε	Paraphrase (“Mestre” / “Rabi”), not transliteration	Native Portuguese equivalents exist and are unambiguous in narrative context; transliterating “Rabbi” beyond the already-common “Rabi” would add no theological precision.

General principle governing this table: transliterate when (a) the term represents Jesus’ or another figure’s actual spoken words in a source language other than the Gospel’s own Greek, and (b) a natural Portuguese equivalent would lose historically-specific texture. Paraphrase using an established Bible-tradition equivalent when the term is itself part of the Greek text (γέεννα, πάσχα) or when a fully naturalized, unambiguous Portuguese term already exists (Ῥαββί).

Part 4 — Ranked List of This Book’s Highest-Risk Ambiguities

Ranked by combined severity of doctrinal stakes and likelihood of collision with a live, organized rival framework in the Brazilian religious landscape (not merely lexical difficulty):

ψυχή / “vida” vs. “alma” (soul-life) — Mark 8:35-37; 10:45; 12:30. Highest rank because it sits at the exact intersection of the curriculum’s anchor doctrine (Ransom for Many) and Brazil’s single largest rival soteriological framework (Kardecism’s evolving “espírito”). A single wrong lexical default (“alma” where “vida” is intended) can silently reintroduce a reincarnating-spirit reading into the ransom saying itself.
λύτρον / ἀντὶ πολλῶν (“resgate” / “em lugar de muitos”) — Mark 10:45. The doctrinal core of the entire curriculum’s anchor passage; “resgate” competes with dominant secular crime/finance registers, and “por muitos” risks losing the substitutionary force entirely if chosen over “em lugar de muitos.”
πνεῦμα ἀκάθαρτον / δαιμόνιον (“espírito imundo” / “demônio”) — throughout, esp. 1:23-27; 3:22-30; 5:1-20; 9:14-29. Highest-frequency Critical cluster; collides with two separate mainstream organized Brazilian religious systems (Kardecism and Candomblé/Umbanda), not one.
υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου vs. υἱὸς θεοῦ (“Filho do Homem” vs. “Filho de Deus”) — 14 + 7 occurrences respectively. Any drift toward treating these as interchangeable collapses the entire Messianic Secret structure and the suffering/authority paradox central to Mark’s Christology.
κατακυριεύω vs. κύριος (“dominar” vs. “Senhor”) — Mark 10:42, directly inside the core passage. A purely internal Portuguese homonymic risk (shared root) rather than a cross-tradition collision, but uniquely severe because it sits one verse away from 10:45’s Christological climax.
δοῦλος (“escravo”) — Mark 10:44. Doctrinal precision (preserving Mark’s diakonos→doulos escalation) is in direct tension with acute cultural sensitivity around Brazil’s slavery history; neither softening the term nor leaving it unglossed is acceptable.
Χριστός / Messias — Kardecist “most evolved spirit” Christology — 8:29; 14:61-62 and throughout. Structural hinge verses of the whole book; the baseline’s Critical designation for “Messias” applies with undiminished force but Mark’s narrative build-up (8:31-33’s internal correction of triumphalist expectation) makes the stakes especially acute here.
ἀνάστασις vs. “reencarnação” (resurrection) — 12:18-27; 16:6. The book’s climactic historical claim; Mark 12:18-27 is itself scriptural ammunition against a reincarnation reading, making correct handling here doctrinally load-bearing beyond the term itself.
δεῖ (“é necessário que”) — 8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34. Risk of collapsing personal, purposive divine necessity into either bare fatalism or a Kardecist karmic-necessity idiom already current in colloquial Portuguese.
ἐγώ εἰμι (“Eu sou”) — 6:50; 14:62. Risk is entirely one of under-annotation: the plain translation is lexically correct but theologically silent without an explicit note connecting it to Exodus 3:14/Isaiah.
γέεννα (“inferno”) — 9:43-48. Direct doctrinal collision with Kardecism’s denial of a literal eternal hell in favor of temporary purificatory states.
μεταμορφόω (“transfigurar-se”) — 9:2-8. Risk of assimilation to New Age/Spiritist “spiritual evolution of consciousness” framing if left undistinguished.
τῶν ἐθνῶν context sensitivity (“nações” vs. “gentios”) — 10:42 (generic worldly rulers) vs. 11:17; 13:10 (ethnic-theological sense). Lower doctrinal stakes than items above but a real risk of importing the wrong register into 10:42, immediately adjacent to the core passage.
σῴζω (“salvar” vs. “curar/sarar”) — 5:23, 28, 34; 6:56; 10:52. Risk of flattening Mark’s deliberate double meaning (physical healing as a sign pointing to fuller salvation) into only one sense.
Talitha cumi / Ephphatha / Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani — internal consistency — 5:41; 7:34; 15:34. Lowest severity of this list but requires disciplined, uniform transliteration-plus-gloss treatment across all three so the pattern of Jesus’ preserved actual speech is recognizable as a deliberate narrative feature rather than isolated curiosities.

Part 5 — Full-Book Chapter Sweep (Coverage Confirmation)

Every chapter of Mark has been reviewed for load-bearing vocabulary gaps. Chapters not separately itemized above contribute no new gap beyond terms already captured in Parts 1–4 and are recorded here explicitly per the full-coverage mandate:

Mark 1 — Gospel opening (evangelho, baseline reused), John’s baptism/repentance (new), Holy Spirit descent, Son of God declaration, kingdom proclamation (1:15), first exorcisms and healings, Messianic Secret formula begins (1:34, 44). Fully covered in Parts 1–4.
Mark 2 — Authority to forgive sins (2:5-12), Sabbath/law controversies (feeds “lei” baseline note). Covered.
Mark 3 — Beelzebul controversy, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (3:28-30), Son of God confession by unclean spirits (3:11). Covered.
Mark 4 — Parables, mystery of the kingdom (4:11), kingdom growth parables. Covered.
Mark 5 — Legion, Talitha cumi, σῴζω healing/salvation double sense (5:23-34). Covered.
Mark 6 — Rejected prophet motif (6:4), sending of the Twelve, ἐγώ εἰμι at the sea (6:50), Herod/John the Baptist. Reviewed — no new gap beyond items already listed.
Mark 7 — Clean/unclean, Corban, Ephphatha, Gentile woman (implicit gentios sense). Covered.
Mark 8 — Feeding miracle, Peter’s confession (Messias, 8:29), first Passion prediction, δεῖ necessity begins, Son of Man suffering sayings begin, ψυχή “whoever loses his life” (8:35-37), glory (8:38). Covered — this chapter is a major hinge; fully represented in Parts 1, 2, and 4.
Mark 9 — Transfiguration, second Passion prediction, ἐγώ εἰμι background (Elijah/Moses), Gehenna (9:43-48), unclean spirit deliverance (9:14-29). Covered.
Mark 10 — Divorce, “let the children come,” rich young man/eternal life (10:17-30), third Passion prediction, the core passage (10:35-45): glory request reframed by suffering, cup/baptism metaphor, κατακυριεύω vs. κύριος, diakonos→doulos escalation, ransom/for many, ψυχή, blind Bartimaeus healing/faith (10:52). This is the single most concentrated chapter of the curriculum; every Part 1–4 finding converges here.
Mark 11 — Triumphal entry (Hosanna), temple/house of prayer, cursing the fig tree, temple authority controversy. Covered.
Mark 12 — David’s-Lord riddle (12:35-37), greatest commandment, widow’s mite, resurrection/Sadducee debate (12:18-27). Covered — this chapter carries a second major Critical-risk cluster (resurrection vs. reincarnation; deity-of-Christ argument).
Mark 13 — Eschatological discourse: tribulation, false christs, watch/be alert, Son of Man coming in glory (13:26), Holy Spirit’s aid in persecution (13:11). Covered.
Mark 14 — Passover, Last Supper (covenant/blood “for many,” directly echoing 10:45), Gethsemane (Abba, cup), betrayal, trial before the high priest (ἐγώ εἰμι + Son of Man + Son of God convergence, 14:61-62), Peter’s denial. Covered — this chapter’s 14:24 and 14:61-62 are flagged in Parts 1 and 4 for direct cross-reference to the core passage.
Mark 15 — Trial before Pilate, crucifixion, Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani, temple veil torn, centurion’s Son of God confession (15:39, the structural payoff of the Messianic Secret). Covered.
Mark 16 — Empty tomb, resurrection announcement (16:6, climactic use of the baseline’s Critical “ressurreição” term), longer-ending textual note (16:9-20), Great Commission/all creation (16:15). Covered.

No chapter of Mark was found to be doctrinally or lexically inert; every chapter contributes at minimum to one of the eight curriculum doctrines’ vocabulary base, confirming full-book coverage for this Step 8 analysis.

Part 6 — Recommendations for Downstream Phase 1 Steps

07 Semantic Analysis should take Part 4’s ranked ambiguity list as its primary worklist, working top-down from ψυχή through the Aramaic-consistency items.
08 Core Glossary should formalize every entry in Part 2.1 (missing vocabulary) with full doctrine-risk-registry-style fields, and every entry in Part 2.2 (crowded neighborhoods) with an explicit “fencing note” field distinct from ordinary translation notes.
Doctrine Risk Registry (Mark update) should add new doctrine entries mirroring Part 1’s eight-doctrine matrix, assigning “Human theologian” review routing to any doctrine whose vocabulary matrix cell above is marked Critical, consistent with baseline routing conventions.
12 AI Translation Requirements (Mark update) should add Mark-specific forbidden-substitution entries for: “reencarnação” (resurrection, reinforced), unqualified “encarnação,” Senhor-cognate renderings of κατακυριεύω, “alma” in ψυχή/ransom contexts, and generic “cura espiritual” framing of healing miracles — extending the baseline’s forbidden-substitution list rather than replacing it.

This analysis extends, and does not contradict, the baseline Romans Language Package. All baseline term renderings, risk tiers, and forbidden substitutions remain in force for Mark; this document identifies only what the baseline did not anticipate for a narrative Gospel and how those gaps should be closed.

Library content is free and openly licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 — share and adapt it for non-commercial use, with attribution to tri-bible.ai.