Linguistic Gap Analysis: 2 Thessalonians (English → Romanian)

Purpose

This document identifies, for every doctrine in this curriculum’s scope (The Day of the Lord, The Man of Lawlessness, Perseverance under Persecution, God’s Righteous Judgment, Standing Firm in the Traditions), where the Romanian language:

1. has a serviceable existing term that nonetheless sits in a “crowded semantic neighborhood” — a term already carrying strong, specific meaning within Romanian Orthodox liturgical, devotional, or ascetic tradition that could distort Paul’s sense if left unfenced;
2. has no native equivalent at all, requiring a constructed compound phrase, a transliteration, or a paraphrase (a “missing vocabulary” gap); and
3. has a genuine ambiguity in the source text itself (grammatical, referential, or interpretive) that Romanian’s own grammatical resources can either preserve faithfully or accidentally resolve.

Findings here govern the risk assignments already recorded in bible_term_registry.json and the Critical/High collision notes in analysis/08_core_glossary.md. Nothing here contradicts the Romans baseline; several categories below are extensions of collision patterns the baseline already established (e.g., baseline “saints” ↔ this curriculum’s parallel “traditions” and “mystery of lawlessness” collisions).

---

1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

1.1 The Day of the Lord

Aspect	Detail
Key source terms	ἡμέρα τοῦ κυρίου (day of the Lord), παρουσία (coming), ἐπισυναγωγή (gathering together), ἐπιφάνεια τῆς παρουσίας (appearing of his coming)
Available Romanian terms	ziua Domnului; venire / a doua venire; adunare; arătarea venirii Sale
Weaknesses	(a) “Ziua Domnului” is colloquially used in some Romanian devotional speech for “Duminica” (Sunday, the weekly Lord’s Day) — a live homophonic-conceptual collision distinct from Paul’s cosmic eschatological referent. (b) “Arătarea Domnului” is a fixed Orthodox liturgical feast (Bobotează/Theophany, Jan. 6, commemorating Christ’s baptism) — a completely different, past, already-fulfilled event that shares the same head noun as this passage’s future “appearing.” (c) “Adunare” risks bleeding into ordinary weekly congregational gathering if not anchored explicitly to the parousia.
Recommended strategy	Retain the established Romanian phrases exactly as recorded (ziua Domnului; venirea Domnului nostru Iisus Hristos; arătarea venirii Sale) but attach a mandatory disambiguating translator note at every occurrence distinguishing (i) the eschatological Day from the weekly Lord’s Day, and (ii) the future parousia’s “appearing” from the fixed past Theophany feast. Treat Orthodox liturgical familiarity with “a doua venire” as a genuine comprehension asset for the parousia concept itself, while fencing the two specific homophonic collisions above.

1.2 The Man of Lawlessness

Aspect	Detail
Key source terms	ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας (man of lawlessness), υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας (son of destruction), ἀντικείμενος (adversary), ὑπεραιρόμενος (self-exaltation), σέβασμα (object of worship), ναός (temple), τὸ κατέχον / ὁ κατέχων (the restrainer), μυστήριον τῆς ἀνομίας (mystery of lawlessness), ἐνέργεια τοῦ σατανᾶ (working of Satan)
Available Romanian terms	omul nelegiuirii; fiul pierzării; potrivnicul / cel ce se împotrivește; cel ce se înalță pe sine; obiect de venerare; templul lui Dumnezeu; ceea ce oprește / cel ce oprește; taina nelegiuirii; lucrarea Satanei
Weaknesses	This doctrine has the single densest cluster of high-stakes lexical collisions in the entire curriculum: (a) “fiul” in “fiul pierzării” risks unintended structural echo of “Fiul lui Dumnezeu,” the baseline’s Critical term for Christ’s unique divine Sonship; (b) “obiect de venerare” uses the exact lexical field (“venerare/cinstire”) that names the positive, formally distinguished Orthodox theological category of dulia (veneration of icons, relics, saints) as opposed to latria (worship due to God alone) — this verse is about self-deification, not a verdict on that category; (c) “taina nelegiuirii” uses “taină,” the load-bearing term for Sfintele Taine (the seven Holy Mysteries/sacraments), a positive sacramental category, for a hidden malignant reality — an intentional Pauline irony that a Romanian reader could otherwise misread as a slight against sacramental theology; (d) Romania’s own 20th-century experience of totalitarian personality cults creates a strong temptation to historicize “omul nelegiuirii” onto a specific past or present ruler, collapsing Paul’s singular future eschatological referent into recent political memory; (e) “potrivnicul” must be kept distinct from the fully developed, later “Antihrist” title (from 1–2 John) that Romanian devotional culture commonly conflates with this passage, even though this letter never uses that word.
Recommended strategy	Retain all terms as recorded in the registry with their mandatory translator notes preserved at every occurrence (not merely first occurrence, given the doctrinal density of 2:1–12). Keep the ἀνομία/ἄνομος word family (“nelegiuire”/“nelegiuit”) lexically identical across all its occurrences (2:3, 2:7, 2:8) so the Romanian reader can trace Paul’s own repeated vocabulary. For τὸ κατέχον / ὁ κατέχων, exploit Romanian’s grammatical gender system to preserve the neuter/masculine shift exactly (“ceea ce oprește” / “cel ce oprește”) without resolving the restrainer’s identity in any note — this is a strength of Romanian relative to languages lacking this grammatical distinction.

1.3 Perseverance under Persecution

Aspect	Detail
Key source terms	ὑπομονή (endurance), θλῖψις (affliction), διωγμός (persecution), ὑπομονὴ τοῦ Χριστοῦ (endurance of Christ), φυλάξῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ (guard from the evil one)
Available Romanian terms	răbdare; necaz / suferință; prigoană; răbdarea lui Hristos; să vă păzească de cel rău
Weaknesses	(a) “Răbdare” is the only natural Romanian rendering of ὑπομονή, but it is also the standard word for a rich, culturally esteemed strand of Orthodox ascetic spirituality emphasizing quiet, passive acceptance of suffering as spiritually meritorious in itself; Paul’s ὑπομονή is active, hope-fueled steadfastness anchored in certainty of Christ’s vindicating return (1:5–10), a meaningfully different emphasis that risks being absorbed into the passive-acceptance connotation by default. (b) “Prigoană” carries strong, vivid 20th-century communist-era persecution memory in Romanian cultural consciousness — genuinely a comprehension asset, but requires care that the specific New Testament referent (hostility on account of gospel faith) remains primary rather than only the modern historical association.
Recommended strategy	Retain “răbdare” (no viable alternative exists) but require a standing teaching caution distinguishing active, hope-anchored steadfastness from passive suffering-acceptance, every time ὑπομονή doctrine is taught (1:4; 3:5). Treat “prigoană” ‘s cultural resonance as a bridge for engagement while keeping the gospel-specific referent explicit in context. Render the genitive “răbdarea lui Hristos” (3:5) preserving its natural double sense in Romanian (endurance modeled by Christ / endurance while awaiting Christ) rather than resolving it toward only one reading.

1.4 God’s Righteous Judgment

Aspect	Detail
Key source terms	δίκαιον παρὰ θεῷ (righteous thing with God), ἐκδίκησις (just retribution), ὄλεθρος αἰώνιος (eternal destruction), ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ κυρίου (from the Lord’s presence), τοῖς ἀπολλυμένοις (those perishing), κριθῶσιν (be judged), ἐνέργεια πλάνης (working of delusion)
Available Romanian terms	lucru drept înaintea lui Dumnezeu; dreapta răsplătire; pieire veșnică; de la fața Domnului; cei ce pier; să fie judecați; lucrare a amăgirii
Weaknesses	(a) “Dreptate,” sharing its root with δίκαιον here, is the baseline’s own Critical term for justification-righteousness received by faith (Romans 3–5); this passage’s use is retributive-judicial, a distinct sense that risks being taught, by association, as if it concerned justification doctrine. (b) The most natural-sounding Romanian gloss for ἐκδίκησις, “răzbunare,” is doctrinally dangerous: in ordinary Romanian it denotes personal, emotionally-driven vindictiveness, risking a portrayal of God as petty or spiteful rather than judicially just. (c) “Lucrare a amăgirii” (God’s judicial hardening/delusion, 2:11) risks a deterministic misreading if the causal sequence (culpable rejection of truth first, judicial delusion second) is not made explicit — a structural parallel to the baseline’s caution on election/providence language.
Recommended strategy	Keep “lucru drept înaintea lui Dumnezeu” rather than a bare “dreptate,” to visually and syntactically separate this retributive-justice sense from the justification-by-faith sense. Reject “răzbunare” as the primary rendering of ἐκδίκησις in favor of “dreapta răsplătire”/“răsplătire dreaptă,” noting the rejected alternative in translator notes per the baseline’s established forbidden-substitution pattern. For “lucrare a amăgirii,” require explicit sequencing language in every teaching context (rejection of truth precedes and grounds the judicial delusion) mirroring the baseline’s election-doctrine caution against both forced determinism and dissolved divine initiative.

1.5 Standing Firm in the Traditions

Aspect	Detail
Key source terms	παράδοσις (traditions), στηρίζω (establish/strengthen), παρακαλέσαι καὶ στηρίξαι (comfort and strengthen), στέλλεσθαι ἀπό (withdraw from), ἡσυχίᾳ ἐργαζόμενοι (working quietly), νουθετεῖτε ὡς ἀδελφόν (admonish as a brother)
Available Romanian terms	predaniile / tradițiile; va întări; să vă mângâie și să vă întărească; să vă depărtați de; lucrând în liniște; mustrați-l ca pe un frate
Weaknesses	This is the highest-stakes doctrine in the curriculum lexically, comparable in weight to the baseline’s “saints” and “grace” collisions. (a) “Tradiție/predanie” collides directly with Sfânta Tradiție, a major, later, formally authoritative Orthodox theological category (patristic writings, Ecumenical Councils, liturgical practice) held alongside Scripture — a Romanian Orthodox reader will almost certainly supply this larger category by default, whereas Paul’s own referent is narrower: the specific apostolic instruction, doctrinal and practical, he personally delivered to this one congregation. (b) “Să vă depărtați de” (withdraw from, 3:6) risks conflation with “afurisenie” (formal ecclesiastical excommunication/anathema), a much weightier canonical act than Paul’s limited, corrective, fraternal measure (clarified in vv. 14–15). (c) “Lucrând în liniște” shares its root with “isihie” (Hesychasm), the technical Orthodox contemplative-mystical prayer tradition associated with Mount Athos, Gregory Palamas, and the Philokalia; Paul’s usage here is entirely mundane (ordinary, unagitated daily labor) and must not import contemplative-mystical connotations.
Recommended strategy	Retain “predaniile” as the primary rendering (closer to Synodal register) with “tradițiile” as an acceptable secondary form, but require — at every single occurrence, not merely the first — a translator note that affirms genuine continuity between Paul’s apostolic-era instruction and the later Orthodox category while keeping Paul’s own narrower referent primary. This is the single term in this curriculum requiring the most consistent notation discipline. For “să vă depărtați de,” explicitly note the contrast with “afurisenie” every occurrence. For “lucrând în liniște,” a brief note disclaiming any Hesychast contemplative association is sufficient (lower stakes than the two Critical items above, but still required given the shared root’s salience to any Orthodox reader with even modest exposure to monastic spiritual literature).

---

2. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods

2.1 Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods Requiring Fencing

These are cases where Romanian does have a usable term, but that term is already the load-bearing name for a distinct, well-established, positive theological or liturgical category — meaning the term must be used but actively fenced with mandatory notes, following the exact pattern the baseline established for “sfinți” and “mijlocire.”

Romanian term	Rival established meaning	2 Thessalonians referent	Fencing requirement
taină (in “taina nelegiuirii”)	Sfintele Taine — the seven Holy Mysteries/sacraments; positive, grace-conveying	The hidden, malignant, already-active operation of end-times rebellion (2:7)	Mandatory note at every occurrence: this is not a sacrament, and shares no conceptual ground with the Sfintele Taine; the resemblance is Paul’s own deliberate irony (a “mystery” opposite in character to the mysteries of grace).
tradiție/predanie	Sfânta Tradiție — formally authoritative Orthodox doctrinal-liturgical category alongside Scripture	Paul’s own personally delivered apostolic instruction to one congregation (2:15, 3:6)	Mandatory note at every occurrence affirming continuity without collapsing Paul’s specific referent into the larger later category.
obiect de venerare / venerare	Dulia — veneration of icons, relics, and saints, formally distinguished from latria (worship of God alone)	The lawless one’s usurpation of worship due to God alone (2:4)	Note that this verse condemns self-deification and false worship, not a verdict on the dulia/latria distinction or icon veneration practice.
arătarea (Domnului/venirii Sale)	Arătarea Domnului / Bobotează — the fixed Theophany feast (Jan. 6), Christ’s past baptism	Christ’s future, still-awaited eschatological appearing (2:8)	Disambiguating note at every occurrence: future/unfulfilled vs. past/fixed liturgical feast.
ziua Domnului	Colloquial devotional use for “Duminica,” the weekly Lord’s Day	The eschatological Day of cosmic judgment and vindication (2:2)	Disambiguating note at every occurrence.
a se depărta de	Afurisenie — formal canonical excommunication	Paul’s limited, corrective, fraternal social distancing (3:6, clarified 3:14-15)	Note contrasting weight/formality every occurrence.
liniște (in “lucrând în liniște”)	Isihie/Hesychasm — contemplative mystical prayer tradition	Ordinary, unagitated daily labor and conduct (3:12)	Brief disclaiming note; lower stakes than the items above.
răbdare	Ascetic tradition of passive, meritorious suffering-acceptance	Active, hope-fueled steadfastness grounded in certainty of Christ’s return (1:4; 3:5)	Standing teaching caution distinguishing active vs. passive senses.
fiul (in “fiul pierzării”)	Fiul lui Dumnezeu — Christ’s unique, eternal, divine Sonship (baseline Critical term)	An idiomatic Hebraism (“one destined for/characterized by destruction,” cf. Judas, John 17:12) — a title of doom, not sonship	Mandatory note at first occurrence (2:3) distinguishing the idiom’s non-literal “sonship” from Christ’s ontological Sonship.
dreptate (root shared in “lucru drept”)	Baseline Critical “dreptate” — righteousness received by faith (Romans 3–5)	Retributive-judicial rightness of God’s coming judgment (1:6)	Use the fuller phrase “lucru drept înaintea lui Dumnezeu” rather than a bare “dreptate” to keep the senses visually distinct.
nelegiuire (shares root with “lege”)	Baseline “lege” — the Mosaic Law/Torah, central to Romans’ argument	General rebellion against God’s moral order, not a Torah-specific claim (2:7)	Brief note preventing import of Romans’ Mosaic-Law argument into this broader term.

2.2 Missing / Underdeveloped Vocabulary

These are concepts for which Romanian has no single native lexeme and a compound phrase, periphrasis, or careful construction is required — genuine gaps rather than collision risks.

Concept	Why no native term exists	Constructed solution	Risk if mishandled
ἐκδίκησις as judicial (not personal) retribution	Romanian’s closest single word, “răzbunare,” denotes personal vindictiveness; no native single word isolates “justice-as-retribution” cleanly from “vengeance-as-vindictiveness"	"dreapta răsplătire” / “răsplătire dreaptă” (compound, adjective-noun construction)	God portrayed as emotionally vindictive rather than judicially just
υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας as a Hebraic idiom of doom	Romanian has no idiomatic “son of X” construction paralleling the Hebrew idiom’s force (destiny/character, not literal descent)	“fiul pierzării,” retained as a literal calque, requiring an explanatory note rather than a domesticated idiom	Read as literal or quasi-familial relationship, or confused with divine Sonship
τὸ κατέχον / ὁ κατέχων as a deliberately unresolved neuter/masculine restrainer	No single Romanian noun exists that is simultaneously impersonal-force and personal-agent; the concept must ride on grammatical gender shift alone	”ceea ce oprește” (neuter-functioning relative clause) / “cel ce oprește” (masculine-functioning relative clause) — a genuine structural asset since Romanian retains grammatical gender distinctions English mostly lost	Premature resolution of the restrainer’s identity if a single gendered noun is chosen instead of the two parallel relative-clause constructions
ἐνέργεια τοῦ σατανᾶ as an ironic parody of parousia	No existing Romanian phrase names “a counterfeit, Satan-sourced second coming"	"lucrarea Satanei” plus an explicit teaching note naming the parody structure (Satan’s false parousia mirroring Christ’s true parousia)	The literary/theological irony of the passage (2:9 mirroring 2:1, 2:8) is simply lost without an added note, since no lexical item carries it automatically
πίστει ἀληθείας / ἀγάπη τῆς ἀληθείας as settled affectional embrace of gospel truth (not mere assent)	“Credință” and “dragoste” are each independently well-supplied, but the specific combined sense — willing, affectionate embrace of a specific truth-claim as the ground of moral culpability — requires the full phrase, not a single word	”credință în adevăr” / “dragostea adevărului” retained as full phrases, never abbreviated to a single noun	Judgment in 2:10–12 could be read as an arbitrary decree rather than the text’s own emphasis on genuine, culpable human refusal
ἀτάκτως περιπατοῦντος as a specific military “out of formation” metaphor tied to eschatological confusion	No Romanian idiom preserves the military image; “neorânduială” is a generic disorder term	”care trăiește în neorânduială,” with a mandatory teaching link back to the Day-of-the-Lord confusion of 2:1–2	Read as a generic anti-poverty or anti-laziness proof text detached from its actual eschatological cause in this letter

---

3. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions

Term	Decision	Rationale
ἀποστασία (apostasy)	Dual form: “lepădarea de credință” (preferred, descriptive) with “apostazia” (transliteration) as an acceptable secondary gloss	Romanian devotional/catechetical usage of “apostazie” already exists but trends toward individual spiritual decline; the descriptive phrase better anchors the specific climactic, corporate, end-times rebellion Paul means here (2:3), while the transliteration remains available for register-matching in academic or catechetical contexts.
παρουσία (parousia)	Paraphrase: “venire” (“a doua venire” in devotional contexts)	A transliterated “parusia” is understood only by seminary-trained readers; “venire”/“a doua venire” is already the live devotional term and correctly conveys singular, personal, visible, future return — no transliteration needed or preferable.
Ἀββά (Abba, baseline precedent)	N/A — cited here only as governing precedent	Baseline retains “Avva” as transliteration paired with “Tată.” No equivalent Aramaic/Hebrew transliteration term occurs in 2 Thessalonians; noted for consistency of method only.
ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας / ἄνομος (man of lawlessness / the lawless one)	Paraphrase/calque, never transliteration	These are Hebraic “man of X” idioms, not proper nouns; a transliteration would produce meaningless Greek loanwords in Romanian. Calque translation (“omul nelegiuirii,” “cel nelegiuit”) correctly preserves the idiom’s force and the word-family link Paul builds across 2:3, 2:7, 2:8.
υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας (son of destruction)	Calque, never transliteration	Same reasoning as above; “fiul pierzării” preserves the idiom while requiring the fencing note against confusion with divine Sonship (see §2.1).
μυστήριον τῆς ἀνομίας (mystery of lawlessness)	Native equivalent term (“taina nelegiuirii”), not transliteration, despite the collision risk	Transliterating as “misterul nelegiuirii” would avoid the Sfintele Taine collision but would sound foreign, clinical, and disconnected from the register of the rest of the letter (which uses “taină” naturally elsewhere in Romanian Bible tradition for other biblical “mysteries,” e.g., Romans 11:25). The collision is judged manageable through mandatory notation rather than avoidable through transliteration, consistent with how the baseline handled “sfinți” (native term + note) rather than inventing an artificial substitute.
ἐκδίκησις (retribution)	Paraphrase, never the natural-seeming “răzbunare”	See §1.4 and §2.2; a single-word transliteration is not applicable here (Greek non-proper-noun common vocabulary), and the natural Romanian cognate-adjacent gloss is doctrinally unsafe as primary rendering.
παράδοσις (traditions)	Native term (“predaniile”), not transliteration	A transliteration (“paradosis”) would be unintelligible to the general Romanian audience and would forfeit the term’s necessary connection — however fenced — to the reader’s existing Sfânta Tradiție framework, which this curriculum needs to engage rather than avoid.
ἡσυχίᾳ ἐργαζόμενοι (working quietly)	Native phrase (“lucrând în liniște”), never the technical term “isihie”	Retaining “liniște” (ordinary word for quiet/calm) rather than any form cognate with “isihie” avoids importing the technical Hesychast association at the lexical level; the collision risk is instead handled entirely through the mandatory disclaiming note (see §2.1), not through terminology choice.
Σατανᾶς (Satan)	Established transliteration (“Satana”), following universal Romanian Bible tradition	No paraphrase needed or available; this is a proper noun with a single, stable, unambiguous Romanian Bible-tradition form across Orthodox and Protestant translations alike.

---

4. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities

Ranked by combined severity of (a) doctrinal centrality to this curriculum’s five doctrines, (b) strength of the rival Romanian semantic association, and (c) frequency/load-bearing weight of the term across the letter.

1. παράδοσις → predaniile/tradițiile (2:15, 3:6) — Highest risk in the curriculum. Directly names the curriculum’s own “Standing Firm in the Traditions” doctrine, and collides with a formally authoritative, systematically developed Orthodox theological category (Sfânta Tradiție) that the target audience will supply automatically and confidently. Unlike most other collisions below, this one risks the reader concluding the opposite of Paul’s own narrower, personally-delivered-instruction referent — potentially over-authorizing later ecclesial tradition using this text, or under-authorizing Paul’s own apostolic instruction by treating it as merely provisional apostolic-era advice.

2. μυστήριον τῆς ἀνομίας → taina nelegiuirii (2:7) — Second-highest risk: the collision runs in the opposite valence from most others in this document (a positive, sacred Romanian term applied to something the text explicitly frames as evil and Satanic), which is precisely the configuration most likely to produce reader confusion or even discomfort, since “taină” elsewhere in the same reader’s devotional life names something entirely sacred.

3. τὸ κατέχον / ὁ κατέχων — the restrainer (2:6-7) — Highest risk of translator-introduced (rather than reader-introduced) error: the temptation to resolve this deliberately ambiguous figure through a single gendered noun, a doctrinal note, or a footnote citing one of the traditional identifications (Roman law/state, gospel proclamation, the Holy Spirit, an angelic power) is strong and must be actively resisted at the translation-technical level, not merely the doctrinal-note level.

4. ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας / υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας — man of lawlessness / son of destruction (2:3) — High risk of historicization given Romania’s specific 20th-century experience of totalitarian personality cults; also carries the internal lexical collision risk with “Fiul lui Dumnezeu.” Two distinct failure modes converge on the same short phrase.

5. ἐκδίκησις → dreapta răsplătire, not răzbunare (1:8) — High risk because the wrong but natural-sounding choice (“răzbunare”) is more intuitive to a translator or reviewer working quickly than the correct compound phrase; this is the collision most likely to be silently reintroduced by a downstream reviewer unfamiliar with this analysis.

6. σέβασμα → obiect de venerare (2:4) — High risk because it touches Orthodox sacramental/devotional self-understanding (the dulia/latria distinction) more directly and personally than most other terms in this list; mishandling risks the text being read as implicitly polemical against icon or saint veneration, which is foreign to Paul’s actual target (self-deification).

7. ἡμέρα τοῦ κυρίου vs. Duminica / ἐπιφάνεια τῆς παρουσίας vs. Bobotează (2:2, 2:8) — Medium-high risk, primarily a homophony/false-friend problem rather than a deep theological collision; manageable with consistent notation but easy to overlook precisely because it seems like a minor lexical coincidence rather than a doctrinal issue.

8. ὑπομονή → răbdare (1:4; 3:5) — Medium-high risk, chronic rather than acute: the term will be used correctly throughout, but the passive-acceptance connotation will quietly reassert itself in teaching and preaching unless the active/hope-fueled distinction is restated every time, since no alternative lexeme exists to carry the distinction automatically.

9. ἐνέργεια πλάνης → lucrare a amăgirii (2:11) — Medium risk: primarily a sequencing/causality risk (judicial response vs. arbitrary cause) rather than a lexical collision; manageable through consistent teaching-note discipline, structurally parallel to the baseline’s existing caution on election/providence language.

10. στέλλεσθαι ἀπό → să vă depărtați de vs. afurisenie (3:6) — Lower-medium risk: the collision is real but the practical stakes (a pastoral-ethics passage, not a Critical doctrinal passage) are lower than items 1–9, and the corrective clarification in vv. 14–15 largely self-limits the risk within the passage itself.

---

Summary of Required Downstream Actions

• All Critical items in §1 and ranked items 1–6 above require mandatory, non-optional translator notes at every occurrence, not merely first occurrence, extending the baseline’s “sfinți” and “mijlocire” precedent to this curriculum’s two comparably weighty new collisions (predanie, taina nelegiuirii).
• The restrainer (κατέχον/κατέχων) and the temple (ναός, carried over from the core glossary) require an explicit prohibition on doctrinal resolution in any note, not merely a caution — a stronger instruction than most other Medium/High items in this document receive.
• This analysis should be loaded alongside 08_core_glossary.md and the updated bible_term_registry.json before Phase 2 Step 12 AI translation requirements are finalized for this curriculum, so that the fencing and transliteration decisions recorded here are enforced identically across all translated segments.