Galatians Linguistic Gap Analysis — English → Romanian

Purpose

This document identifies where standard literary Romanian has, lacks, or over-supplies vocabulary for the doctrinal load Galatians carries, and recommends translation strategy accordingly. It extends — and must not contradict — the baseline Romans Language Package, which is the language authority for shared terms (gospel, grace, faith, righteousness, justification, law, called/calling, adoption, resurrection, lord, son of God, covenant, church, Holy Spirit, etc.). Where Galatians reuses a baseline term, this analysis notes only what is new about its use in this letter. Where Galatians introduces genuinely new vocabulary or doctrine, this analysis performs the gap analysis proper.

Galatians is a polemical, tightly-argued letter defending a single thesis — justification by faith apart from law-works — through five interlocking lines of argument (autobiographical, scriptural/Abrahamic, redemptive-historical, allegorical, ethical). Its linguistic risk profile therefore clusters heavily around a small set of terms that recur with unusual density (νόμος/lege, πίστις/credință, δικαιόω family) rather than being spread evenly across many topics, as Romans is. This concentration raises the stakes of getting a small number of renderings exactly right and exactly consistent.

---

A. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

For each of the fourteen curriculum doctrines: the Romanian vocabulary currently available, its weaknesses for this specific doctrine, and the recommended strategy.

1. Justification by Faith

• Available terms: îndreptățire (noun, [TM]); a (se) îndreptăți (verb, constructed from the TM noun root); dreptate [TM]; faptele legii (new); dreptate imputată / a socoti [TM].
• Weaknesses: Orthodox theological instinct reads îndreptățire as ongoing transformation toward theosis rather than a decisive declared status; Romanian has no native discrete category for “forensic declaration distinct from moral transformation” (the same gap the baseline already documented for Romans, now intensified because Galatians 2:16 uses the verb three times in one verse with aorist-subjunctive decisiveness).
• Recommended strategy: Reuse the baseline noun root without deviation; construct the verb form from the same root so a Romanian reader visibly recognizes one doctrine across both epistles. Do not attempt a new coinage. Supply translator notes at 2:16 and 3:24 anchoring the decisive, once-for-all force of the aorist without denying an Orthodox reader’s larger transformative framework.

2. The True Gospel versus False Gospels

• Available terms: evanghelie [TM]; altă evanghelie / o evanghelie diferită (new); anatema (new, high collision risk).
• Weaknesses: Standard Romanian has only one common noun for “gospel,” which is a strength for stability but creates a challenge when Paul needs to speak of a rival “gospel” while denying it is really one. Romanian naturally reaches for “altă evanghelie,” which read alone could concede Paul’s very point.
• Recommended strategy: Pair “altă evanghelie / o evanghelie diferită” with an explanatory clause each occurrence (“…care de fapt nu este o altă evanghelie”) rather than trying to invent a separate noun for “counterfeit gospel.” Treat as a paraphrase-plus-note solution, not a new lexical item.

3. Paul’s Apostleship

• Available terms: apostol [TM, Low baseline]; descoperire (new); stâlpi (new); semnele Domnului Iisus (new).
• Weaknesses: “Apostol” is lexically unambiguous, but the baseline’s Low-risk tier was set for Romans, where Paul’s apostleship is asserted, not defended. In Galatians it is the subject of sustained argument (ch. 1-2), so the doctrine risk is higher even though the term risk is unchanged.
• Recommended strategy: Keep the term “apostol” but elevate routing (theologian review) for every Galatians 1 occurrence, per the doctrine-risk registry entry. No new vocabulary is needed; the gap is procedural (review routing), not lexical.

4. Law and Grace

• Available terms: lege [TM]; har [TM]; faptele legii (new, Critical); a anula / a zădărnici (new); în zadar (new, Critical false-friend); Nicidecum! (idiom).
• Weaknesses: Standard Romanian “lege” is unambiguous as a noun but carries no built-in signal for Paul’s two distinct senses (law as a system of required observance vs. law as a set of ethnic boundary markers). “Faptele legii” is a genuine gap-filling compound with no prior Romanian doctrinal currency outside Bible translation itself.
• Recommended strategy: Fix “faptele legii” as a stable compound (not “lucrările legii” or other variants) and enforce it across every occurrence (2:16 x3; 3:2,5,10) without narrowing to either sense Paul intends. Flag δωρεάν (2:21) explicitly as a false-friend danger — see Section D below.

5. Crucified with Christ

• Available terms: a fi răstignit împreună cu Hristos (new); Hristos trăiește în mine (new); s-a dat pe Sine pentru mine (new); a răstigni firea pământească (new, reused verb root).
• Weaknesses: Romanian “a răstigni” is liturgically loaded (Vinerea Mare) in a way that is an asset, not a gap — but the specific compound “a fi răstignit împreună cu” has no independent liturgical currency and must be constructed to carry both (a) the once-for-all identification with Christ’s death and (b) compatibility with the Orthodox daily-cross-bearing devotional pattern without collapsing into it.
• Recommended strategy: paraphrase-construction using the shared verb root across 2:20, 5:24, and 6:14 to keep the motif visibly unified through the letter; supply a translator note distinguishing the decisive past event from ongoing ascetic practice.

6. The Abrahamic Covenant and Promise

• Available terms: Avraam (established proper name); făgăduință (new); sămânță (new, Critical grammatical-number constraint); binecuvântare (new); legământ [TM]; iudeu… elin / rob… liber / parte bărbătească… femeiască (new); Israelul lui Dumnezeu (new, High, unresolved referent).
• Weaknesses: “Sămânță” happily preserves the Greek’s singular-but-collective grammatical ambiguity — a rare case where Romanian morphology matches the source rather than creating a gap. The real weakness is “făgăduință” vs. “promisiune”: modern colloquial Romanian favors the latter, which carries a contractual, negotiable-commitment flavor foreign to a unilateral divine pledge.
• Recommended strategy: Deliberately select the more archaic/dignified “făgăduință” over the more common “promisiune” throughout, prioritizing theological register over colloquial familiarity. Never pluralize “sămânță.” Leave “Israelul lui Dumnezeu” referentially open in the translation itself; resolve only in teaching notes.

7. The Law’s Purpose

• Available terms: blestem / blestemat (new); a răscumpăra (new); călăuzitor (new, Critical, constructed); stihiile lumii (new, Critical, established-but-risky phrase).
• Weaknesses: Two genuine lexical gaps converge here. (a) παιδαγωγός has no Romanian equivalent at all — the closest cognate, “pedagog,” is a false friend meaning “teacher,” nearly the inverse of Paul’s custodial-guardian sense. (b) στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου is rendered by an established Bible-translation phrase (“stihiile lumii”) that collides with living Romanian folk-Orthodox belief in animistic nature-spirits (“stihii dezlănțuite” is common idiom for storms/natural forces).
• Recommended strategy: For παιδαγωγός, do not transliterate or borrow “pedagog”; construct a descriptive paraphrase (“călăuzitor” or “supraveghetor”) with a mandatory explanatory note on the Greco-Roman household-servant role. For στοιχεῖα, retain the established “stihiile lumii” per Cornilescu-tradition precedent (breaking with it would create cross-tradition inconsistency) but require an explicit disambiguating note at every occurrence (4:3, 4:9).

8. Adoption and Sonship

• Available terms: înfiere [TM]; Avva [TM]; Tată [TM]; moștenitor (new); rob (new); născut din femeie, născut sub lege (new, Critical); Fiul lui Dumnezeu [TM].
• Weaknesses: No lexical gap; the vocabulary is fully supplied by the baseline. The risk is purely doctrinal-conflation: “Fiul lui Dumnezeu” (Christ’s unique Sonship, 4:4) and “înfiere” (believers’ adoptive sonship, 4:5) use different Romanian words already, which is a linguistic asset — Romanian does not force the same term onto both categories the way some languages might.
• Recommended strategy: No new coinage needed; enforce the existing distinction rigorously and never let “fiu al lui Dumnezeu” (lowercase, generic) substitute for the fixed phrase “Fiul lui Dumnezeu” in 4:4.

9. Freedom in Christ

• Available terms: libertate (new); a aduce în robie (new); jugul robiei (new).
• Weaknesses: “Libertate” is a modern, largely secular-political Romanian word with no distinctively theological register of its own (unlike “har” or “mântuire,” which carry deep liturgical resonance). It risks being heard as either (a) a purely inward/spiritual freedom with no ethical content, or (b) implicitly anti-institutional, given the structured place of fasting rules, canonical hours, and confession/spiritual-direction obedience in Orthodox practice.
• Recommended strategy: No better native term exists; retain “libertate” but mandate that every occurrence in teaching material be paired with 5:13’s love-qualification (“nu folosiți libertatea ca prilej pentru firea pământească, ci slujiți-vă unii pe alții prin dragoste”) so the doctrine is never taught as freedom-from-obligation.

10. Circumcision and the New Creation

• Available terms: tăiere împrejur (established biblical phrase); botezați în Hristos (new); făptură nouă (new).
• Weaknesses: The literal referent (circumcision as a Judaizing demand) is not a live controversy for a contemporary Romanian audience, Orthodox or Evangelical. The term itself is not linguistically ambiguous, but risks becoming inert — a historical curiosity rather than a doctrine with present force — unless deliberately reframed.
• Recommended strategy: Retain the established biblical phrase “tăiere împrejur” rather than the clinical loanword “circumcizie,” but supply consistent teaching-note reframing around the functional equivalent: any external religious performance treated as necessary, alongside faith, for full acceptance before God. “Făptură nouă” and “botezați în Hristos” carry no gap; both align naturally with Orthodox sacramental and creational theology.

11. Flesh versus Spirit

• Available terms: firea pământească (moral sense, new); trup (neutral sense, new); faptele firii pământești (new); Duhul Sfânt / Duhul [TM]; a răstigni firea pământească (new).
• Weaknesses: σάρξ genuinely carries two distinct senses across the letter (neutral-physical at 2:20; morally-loaded at 5:13-24), and Romanian has no single word that spans both the way Greek σάρξ does. Using one Romanian word for both senses would either (a) introduce false body-negativity into 2:20, contradicting Orthodox affirmation of the body’s goodness through the Incarnation and icons, or (b) flatten the moral force of chapter 5.
• Recommended strategy: Deliberately bifurcate the rendering by context — “trup” for the neutral sense, “firea pământească” for the moral sense — and record this bifurcation explicitly in translation memory so Phase 2 workers do not default to a single mechanical mapping.

12. Fruit of the Spirit

• Available terms: rodul Duhului (new, deliberately singular).
• Weaknesses: No lexical gap. The risk is purely grammatical-number: Romanian “rod” (singular) vs. “roade” (plural) both exist and are equally natural, so a translator could unintentionally pluralize without realizing anything doctrinal was at stake.
• Recommended strategy: Lock the singular “rodul Duhului” in translation memory with an explicit rule forbidding “roadele Duhului,” preserving Paul’s singular/plural contrast against the preceding plural “faptele” (works) of the flesh.

13. Faith Working through Love

• Available terms: credința care lucrează prin dragoste (new, Critical); dragoste (new); credință [TM].
• Weaknesses: No lexical gap — “dragoste” and “a lucra prin” combine naturally. The risk is entirely doctrinal-historical: this phrase (5:6) was the historic Reformation-era proof-text for “fides caritate formata” (faith formed by love as a co-requirement for justification), a debate with no organic equivalent in Orthodox theological categories, which lean synergistic by default and could readily read the verse as supporting love as a co-condition alongside faith.
• Recommended strategy: Render literally and naturally (“credința care lucrează prin dragoste”); manage the risk entirely through teaching notes rather than translation choice, explicitly stating that love is faith’s necessary expression, not an added ground of justification alongside it (protecting the settled point of 2:16).

14. Bearing One Another’s Burdens

• Available terms: a purta (new); povară (new); sarcină / povara proprie (new); legea lui Hristos (new).
• Weaknesses: Romanian’s strong agrarian and communal-life vocabulary supplies this domain well; the only subtlety is Paul’s deliberate distinction between shared βάρος (6:2) and personal, non-transferable φορτίον (6:5), which two natural Romanian nouns (“povară” / “sarcină”) can mark, but only if the translator is alerted to preserve the distinction rather than treating the words as free variants.
• Recommended strategy: Fix “povară” for βάρος and “sarcină” (or “povara proprie”) for φορτίον as a deliberate, non-interchangeable pair; supply a translator’s note explaining Paul’s intended contrast.

---

B. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods

B.1 Genuine Missing Vocabulary (true lexical gaps — Romanian has no native equivalent and a phrase must be constructed)

Gap	Why it is a true gap	Resolution strategy
παιδαγωγός (3:24-25)	No Romanian social role corresponds to the Greco-Roman custodial slave-tutor; the nearest cognate (“pedagog”) means the opposite (a teacher) in modern usage.	Construct descriptive paraphrase “călăuzitor” + mandatory explanatory note. Never transliterate or borrow “pedagog.”
πίστις Χριστοῦ genitive (2:16 x2, 20; 3:22)	Romanian genitive constructions do not carry the same structural ambiguity as Greek; a translator must choose objective or subjective sense, whereas the Greek leaves it formally open.	Default to objective genitive (“credința în Iisus Hristos”) per Synodal/Cornilescu tradition; record “credincioșia lui Hristos” as the alternative; flag every occurrence for theologian review.
ἔργα νόμου as a unified technical category (2:16 x3; 3:2,5,10)	Standard Romanian has no pre-existing doctrinal compound for “law-works” as Paul’s specific target; ordinary Romanian would separately describe “keeping the law” and “circumcision/food laws” without uniting them under one phrase.	Construct and fix “faptele legii” as a single stable compound spanning both senses, never narrowed to either alone.
δικαιόω verb sharing the baseline îndreptățire noun root	Standard Romanian theological usage more often nominalizes than verbalizes this concept fluently in running prose.	Construct “a (se) îndreptăți” deliberately from the fixed noun root rather than reaching for a looser paraphrase like “a fi făcut drept,” which would sever the cross-reference to Romans.
δωρεάν’s contextual reversal (2:21)	No single Romanian word covers both “as a free gift” and “for no purpose, in vain”; the two senses require two different words, and the wrong choice is doctrinally catastrophic here.	Fix “în zadar” for this verse only; forbid “în dar”/“gratuit” explicitly.

B.2 Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods (Romanian does have a ready term, but it is already occupied by a strong rival association that must be fenced off)

Term	Crowding source	Fencing strategy
anatema (1:8-9)	Sunday of Orthodoxy Synodikon: a formal, conciliar, institutional act of ecclesiastical judgment naming specific heresies.	Retain “anatema” (no better term exists and the cognate is doctrinally apt) but mandatory teaching note: this is Paul’s own immediate, Spirit-given apostolic judgment on the message, not primarily a call for a later conciliar procedure.
slujitor al păcatului, avoiding “diacon” (2:17)	“Diacon” is fixed exclusively to the ordained ecclesiastical office across every Romanian Christian tradition.	Never use “diacon al păcatului” under any circumstance; use “slujitor al păcatului” as the sole rendering — this is now a hard forbidden-substitution rule, not merely a preference.
chemare / chemat (1:6,15; 5:8,13)	“Chemare monahală” — the culturally prominent Orthodox category of a call to monastic life.	Reuse baseline fencing exactly: context must make clear the call addresses every believer (Paul’s own apostolic call and the general call to freedom), never narrow to a specialized religious vocation.
stihiile lumii (4:3,9)	Living Romanian folk-Orthodox idiom for animistic nature-spirits (“stihii dezlănțuite”).	Retain the established Bible-translation phrase for cross-tradition consistency, but require an explicit disambiguating translator’s note at every single occurrence — no exceptions.
tăiere împrejur (throughout)	Not crowded by a rival meaning so much as emptied of present force — no living circumcision controversy exists for the target audience.	Reframe pedagogically (not lexically) around the functional equivalent: any added external religious performance treated as necessary for acceptance before God.
semnele Domnului Iisus, avoiding “stigmate” (6:17)	Catholic-popular devotional category of miraculous crucifixion-resembling wounds (Francis of Assisi, Padre Pio), essentially foreign to Orthodox tradition and to Paul’s meaning.	Avoid the loanword “stigmate” as primary rendering; use “semnele Domnului Iisus” with a note clarifying these are ordinary persecution scars, not a miraculous phenomenon.
har / îndreptățire (2:21; throughout)	Already fenced by the baseline Palamite essence-energies concern; Galatians intensifies the risk because 2:21 and 5:4 pose grace and law-works as mutually exclusive, a sharper antithesis than most Romans passages state as starkly.	Reuse baseline fencing exactly; add the Galatians-specific note that the exclusivity claim (grace vs. law-works as competing bases of standing) must not be softened even while the participatory dimension of “har” is preserved elsewhere.
libertate (2:4; 5:1,13)	Modern secular-political register with no inherent theological weight, risking a reading either as pure inward freedom or as tacitly anti-institutional given Orthodox observance practice.	No better native term exists; manage entirely through mandatory pairing with the 5:13 love-qualification in every teaching context.

---

C. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions

Term/Phrase	Decision	Rationale
Ἀββά (Abba)	Transliterate — “Avva”	Established in baseline (Romans 8:15); identical formula reused in Gal 4:6; preserving the untranslated Aramaic retains the intimacy the formal “Tată” alone does not fully carry.
ἀνάθεμα (anathema)	Transliterate — “anatema”	The cognate loanword is already fixed in Romanian ecclesiastical vocabulary; paraphrasing (e.g., “blestemat”) would lose the term’s specific weight and its (legitimate, later) conciliar resonance entirely. Manage the collision risk via teaching note, not by avoiding the transliteration.
παιδαγωγός (paidagōgos)	Paraphrase, not transliterate — “călăuzitor” + explanatory note	The natural transliteration-adjacent cognate “pedagog” is a false friend in modern Romanian (means “teacher/educator”); transliteration would actively mislead rather than merely under-inform.
ἀποκάλυψις (apokalypsis)	Paraphrase, not transliterate — “descoperire"	"Apocalipsă” is fixed in Romanian exclusively as the proper title of the book of Revelation; using it generically for Paul’s “revelation” in 1:12,16; 2:2 would produce serious reader confusion.
στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου (stoicheia tou kosmou)	Retain established phrase, not new coinage — “stihiile lumii”	Cornilescu-tradition precedent already exists; abandoning it would create inconsistency across the wider Romanian Bible-translation landscape. Manage the folk-animism collision via mandatory note rather than lexical substitution.
Ἀβραάμ, Ἄγαρ, Σάρρα (Abraham, Hagar, Sarah)	Use established Orthodox Bible proper-name forms — Avraam, Agar, Sara	Standard convention; no doctrinal content to negotiate, only orthographic consistency.
ἔργα νόμου, faptele legii	Construct fixed compound, not single-word coinage	No single Romanian word carries this technical sense; a multi-word compound must be locked in translation memory exactly as with the baseline’s “dreptate imputată.”
πίστις Χριστοῦ	Paraphrase with recorded alternative, not resolved by a single fixed rendering alone	Genuine grammatical ambiguity in the source; Romanian forces a choice where Greek does not. Default objective-genitive rendering plus recorded subjective-genitive alternative per the Ambiguity Handling protocol.
δικαιόω / a (se) îndreptăți	Construct verb from existing TM noun root, not independent coinage	Preserves cross-book (Romans/Galatians) doctrinal visibility; inventing a fresh verb unrelated to “îndreptățire” would sever that connection for the learner.
Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ	Literal compound, referent left unresolved in the translation itself — “Israelul lui Dumnezeu”	Translation should not silently adjudicate a live scholarly and doctrinally sensitive debate; resolution belongs in teaching notes only.

---

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

Ranked by combined severity (doctrinal weight × likelihood of mistranslation) and scoped specifically to what is distinctive about Galatians (not merely inherited baseline risk).

1. δωρεάν reversal (2:21) — Critical. The identical Greek word means “as a free gift” in Romans 3:24 but “for no purpose, in vain” here. A translator working quickly from memory of the Romans rendering could catastrophically invert Paul’s meaning (“Christ died as a gift” vs. Paul’s actual point, “Christ died for nothing” if law-works could justify). Requires a hard, verse-specific override rule.

2. παιδαγωγός false friend (3:24-25) — Critical. The nearest-sounding Romanian word (“pedagog”) means almost the opposite of Paul’s intended sense. Silent transliteration by an inattentive translator or downstream AI system is a realistic failure mode given how naturally cognate borrowing occurs elsewhere in this Language Package.

3. στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου syncretism collision (4:3, 9) — Critical. “Stihiile lumii” is doctrinally correct by translation-tradition precedent but linguistically live in Romanian folk-Orthodox culture as a term for real animistic nature-spirits. Without an explicit note at every occurrence, catechetically under-formed readers may import folk-supernatural content Paul never intended.

4. πίστις Χριστοῦ genitive ambiguity (2:16 x2, 20; 3:22) — Critical. Bears directly on Justification by Faith, the letter’s central doctrine; the objective/subjective genitive choice is a live scholarly debate with real doctrinal stakes (whether the ground of justification is the believer’s own faith-response or Christ’s own faithfulness). Romanian’s grammar forces a choice the Greek does not.

5. ἔργα νόμου scope-narrowing (2:16 x3; 3:2,5,10) — Critical. Risk of translators or teachers narrowing “faptele legii” to only the ceremonial/boundary-marker sense (circumcision, food laws) or only the general moral-observance sense, when Paul’s argument moves fluidly between both and the letter’s thesis depends on the full scope being intact.

6. ἀνάθεμα conciliar misreading (1:8-9) — Critical. The single Romanian cognate available carries a specific, well-known institutional procedural connotation (the Synodikon) that could lead readers to hear Paul’s statement as calling for a later ecclesiastical process rather than expressing his own immediate apostolic verdict.

7. πίστις δι᾿ ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη (5:6) — Critical. Historically the Reformation-era crux verse for whether love is a co-requirement for justification alongside faith. An Orthodox synergistic reading could naturally (mis)read this as confirming a co-requirement, directly contradicting the settled point of 2:16. Purely a teaching-note risk since the Romanian rendering itself is not ambiguous.

8. σάρξ dual-sense collapse (2:20 vs. 5:13-24) — High. If a single Romanian word is used for both the neutral-physical and morally-loaded senses, either 2:20 acquires false body-negativity (jarring against Orthodox iconographic/incarnational theology) or chapter 5’s moral force is diluted. Requires disciplined dual-rendering enforcement, not a single default.

9. διάκονος / slujitor al păcatului (2:17) — High. A literal cognate rendering (“diacon al păcatului”) would be not merely awkward but actively absurd and mildly irreverent given the fixed, exclusively ecclesiastical meaning “diacon” carries across every Romanian Christian tradition. Requires a hard forbidden-substitution rule.

10. Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ referent (6:16) — High. Doctrinally live (supersessionism-adjacent) debate about whether “the Israel of God” denotes the Church, believing Jews, or ethnic Israel; a translation choice that silently resolves this (e.g., by adding an implicit “true” or “spiritual”) would pre-empt a debate the text itself leaves open.

11. στίγματα / semnele Domnului Iisus (6:17) — Medium-High. Lower doctrinal stakes than the items above, but a real cross-tradition collision: the obvious loanword “stigmate” carries a Catholic miraculous-wound association fully absent from both Paul’s meaning and Orthodox devotional categories.

12. τάιεre împrejur inert-referent risk (throughout) — Medium. Not a mistranslation risk in the usual sense — the term itself is stable and correct — but a reception risk: without deliberate pedagogical reframing, the doctrine could be received as a historical curiosity with no present application for a contemporary Romanian audience.

---

E. Chapter Coverage Confirmation

Full-book scope requirement: every chapter of Galatians has been reviewed for load-bearing vocabulary and doctrine; none is silently omitted.

Chapter	Load-bearing contribution captured above	Status
Galatians 1	Gospel under attack; anathema; apostleship (revelation, Judaism, zealous, present evil age); resurrection formula	Reviewed — full new-term contribution
Galatians 2	Core passage (2:15-21): justification, faith, works of the law, grace, crucified with Christ, all flesh, in vain/δωρεάν, servant of sin; also pillars, false brothers, freedom, truth of the gospel, hypocrisy, walk uprightly	Reviewed — highest-density chapter, anchor of this analysis
Galatians 3	Abrahamic covenant, promise, seed/offspring, blessing, curse, redeem, paidagōgos, covenant, baptized into Christ, unity formula, heir	Reviewed — full new-term contribution
Galatians 4	Elemental spirits, fullness of time, born under law (incarnation), adoption, Abba, slave, allegory, Jerusalem above, Hagar/Sarah	Reviewed — full new-term contribution
Galatians 5	Yoke of slavery, circumcision (continued), faith working through love, love, neighbor, flesh/works of the flesh, fruit of the Spirit, kingdom of God, crucify the flesh	Reviewed — full new-term contribution
Galatians 6	Bear burdens, burden vs. load, law of Christ, sow/reap, new creation, boast, marks of Jesus, Israel of God	Reviewed — full new-term contribution

No chapter contributes zero new terms in Galatians; the letter’s density is evenly high throughout, unlike Romans’ more variable chapter-by-chapter load. This confirms the core passage (2:15-21) functions correctly as the curriculum’s theological anchor while the gap analysis itself spans the whole letter.

---

This document must be consulted alongside 08_core_glossary.md and the Galatians additions to bible_term_registry.json before Phase 2 segment translation begins. Any new term encountered during Phase 2 that is not accounted for here or in those files must trigger the New Term Discovery procedure in 12_ai_translation_requirements.md.