Linguistic Gap Analysis — Jude | English → Russian

Curriculum: Jude Core passage: Jude 1:3–23 Full-book scope: Jude 1:1–25 (single-chapter epistle; every verse reviewed below) Companion documents: 07_semantic_analysis.md · 08_core_glossary.md Extends: baseline Romans translation_memory.json, bible_term_registry.json, doctrine_risk_registry.json (russian). Does not contradict any baseline entry; all Romans-established terms are reused exactly where they recur in Jude.

Purpose: This is PRD Phase 1 Step 8 for the Jude curriculum. It (1) maps each target doctrine to the Russian vocabulary currently available, with weaknesses and a recommended handling strategy; (2) identifies true vocabulary gaps versus “crowded” semantic neighborhoods that need explicit fencing so terms do not bleed into each other or into Russian Orthodox devotional/folk registers; (3) resolves transliteration-vs-paraphrase decisions; and (4) ranks the letter’s highest-risk ambiguities for Phase 2 escalation routing. Risk tiers (Critical/High/Medium/Low) follow the baseline doctrine_risk_registry.json definitions exactly.

---

0. Full-Book Coverage Confirmation

Jude is a single 25-verse chapter. Per the PRD full-coverage mandate, every verse has been reviewed for load-bearing vocabulary, not only the core passage (1:3–23). The table below confirms coverage and flags which verses were determined to contribute no new terms beyond what is already captured in the doctrine matrix and prior glossary.

Verse(s)	Reviewed	New load-bearing content?	Disposition
1:1	✅	Yes — Иуда (author-name collision), раб, призванный, textual variant освящены/возлюбленные, Отец	Covered in §1 (Docs 1, 5) and Ranked List
1:2	✅	Low — милость, мир, любовь (greeting formula)	Covered in §1 (Doc 4); no new risk beyond existing entries
1:3	✅	Yes — вера, подвизаться, однажды преданная, святые	Covered in §1 (Doc 1)
1:4	✅	Yes — нечестивый, благодать/распутство, Владыка/Господь variant, осуждение	Covered in §1 (Docs 1, 2) and Ranked List
1:5	✅	Yes — Иисус/Господь textual variant, Египет, неверующие, погубить	Covered in §1 (Doc 3) and Ranked List
1:6	✅	Yes — ангел, достоинство, жилище, вечные узы, суд, хранить (tēreō #1–2)	Covered in §1 (Docs 3, 5)
1:7	✅	Yes — Содом и Гоморра, блудодействовать, иная плоть, казнь огня вечного	Covered in §1 (Docs 2, 3) and Ranked List (top entry)
1:8	✅	Yes — мечтатели, оскверняют, господство/начальства, высшие власти (δόξαι)	Covered in §1 (Doc 2) and Ranked List
1:9	✅	Yes — архангел, диавол, суд, запретить	Covered in §1 (Doc 2); no upgrade beyond Medium
1:10	✅	Yes — бессловесные животные, растлевать себя	Covered in §1 (Doc 2); Low-Medium, no new fencing need
1:11	✅	Yes — Каин, Валаам, Корей, заблуждение/обман, корысть, упорство, горе им	Covered in §1 (Doc 3)
1:12	✅	Yes — вечери любви, подводные камни/соблазн (spilas), пасущие только себя, безводные облака, осенние деревья	Covered in §2 (crowded/fenced)
1:13	✅	Yes — свирепые морские волны, звёзды блуждающие, мрак, хранить (tēreō #3)	Covered in §1 (Doc 5)
1:14	✅	Yes — тьмы/множество (myriads), пророчествовал (Enoch)	Covered in Ranked List (major entries)
1:15	✅	Yes — нечестивый (×5 repetition), грех/грешник, жёсткие слова	Covered in §1 (Doc 2); repetition-preservation flagged
1:16	✅	Yes — ропотники, недовольные, надутые слова, похоть, лицеприятие	Covered in §1 (Doc 2); Medium, no elevation
1:17–18	✅	Yes — апостол, ругатели	Covered in §1 (Doc 1); consistent with baseline apostle entry
1:19	✅	Yes — отделяющие себя, душевные, не имеющие Духа	Covered in Ranked List (major entry)
1:20	✅	Yes — святейшая вера, назидать(ся), Святой Дух	Covered in §1 (Doc 1)
1:21	✅	Yes — любовь, хранить (tēreō #4), милость, вечная жизнь	Covered in §1 (Docs 4, 5)
1:22–23	✅	Yes — колеблющиеся/сомневающиеся, исторгать/извлекать, одежда оскверненная плотью, milость; major textual variant (2 vs 3 groups)	Covered in §1 (Doc 4) and Ranked List
1:24	✅	Yes — хранить/соблюсти от падения (tēreō #5), непорочный/неповинный, радость/ликование, слава	Covered in §1 (Docs 5, 6)
1:25	✅	Yes — Спаситель, величие, держава/сила, власть, прежде всех веков…во все веки, аминь	Covered in §1 (Doc 6)

No verse in Jude was found to be doctrinally inert. Every verse contributes at least one term already tracked in the prior glossary or newly fenced below; this reflects the letter’s unusually dense, front-loaded rhetorical style (25 verses containing more distinct OT/extra-biblical allusions per verse than most NT chapters of comparable length).

---

1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

For each of the six curriculum doctrines: available Russian terms, their weaknesses, and the recommended handling strategy for Phase 2.

Doctrine 1 — Contending for the Faith Once Delivered (Jude 1:3, 17–20)

Available Russian terms	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
вера (faith)	Baseline High-risk term; in Jude carries a second, distinct objective sense (“the faith” = fixed apostolic deposit) alongside Romans’ subjective personal-trust sense	Flag explicitly per occurrence which sense is active (1:3, 1:20 = objective; elsewhere = subjective); never let the two senses silently merge
подвизаться (contend)	Etymologically root-linked to подвиг/подвижник, the standard vocabulary of Orthodox ascetic-heroic struggle (martyrs, hermits, hagiography); risks being heard as a call to a specialized monastic vocation	Explicit teaching gloss on first use: this is every believer’s active doctrinal vigilance, not a call to ascetic withdrawal (cross-reference baseline’s “separation_unto_gods_service” caution against monastic misreading)
однажды преданная (once for all delivered)	Shares verbal root with Предание (Holy Tradition, an ongoing, developing authoritative stream in Orthodox theology)	State the ἅπαξ (closed, fixed, non-repeatable) sense explicitly in surrounding text; never let it default toward an ongoing-transmission reading
святейшая вера (most holy faith, 1:20)	Compound superlative combining two High-risk baseline terms (святой + вера); risk of flattening to ordinary “святая вера”	Preserve the superlative form; gloss as intensifying the letter’s high view of the closed apostolic deposit from 1:3
назидать(ся) (build up)	Low risk; already Low-tier in baseline’s mutual-edification doctrine	No special handling needed

Overall doctrine risk: Critical (driven by подвизаться and однажды преданная). Routing: Human theologian review for all four Critical/High terms above.

---

Doctrine 2 — Judgment on Ungodly False Teachers (Jude 1:4–19)

Available Russian terms	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
нечестивый / нечестие (ungodly)	Same post-Soviet secularization-flattening risk baseline flags for грех; risks drifting toward “irreligious/non-observant” rather than active, culpable defiance	Preserve the deliberate fivefold repetition at 1:15 verbatim — do not vary for stylistic elegance; this is a rhetorical device, not incidental repetition
грех / грешник (sin/sinner)	Reused from baseline; same flattening risk, reinforced by proximity to the 1:15 repetition	No new strategy beyond baseline; teach explicitly rather than assume weight from vocabulary alone
суд (krisis, judicial process) vs осуждение (krima, the sentence)	Both render as generic “judgment” if not disciplined; overlapping English gloss risks collapsing the distinction	Maintain suд = process/event, осуждение = the sentence/verdict, consistently across 1:4, 1:6, 1:9, 1:15
распутство (sensuality) / блудодействовать (fornication)	Must retain full force of defiant, settled indulgence; risk of euphemistic softening	Do not substitute a generic “sin” gloss; keep vivid moral-abandon force
иная плоть (Sodom’s “other flesh,” 1:7)	Compounds ordinary translation-precision risk with acute contemporary Russian political/legal sensitivity (current “traditional values” legislation makes this category a live culture-war flashpoint)	Route for mandatory human theologian review with explicit pastoral framing guidance; do not leave to unaided translator discretion; do not euphemize in a way that loses Jude’s point that this was a different kind of sin from ordinary ekporneuō in the same verse
хулить / злословить (blaspheme)	Medium; must retain theological weight over ordinary insult	Standard handling
ропотники / надутые слова / лицеприятие	Medium/Low; honor-shame dynamics (лицеприятие)	Native speaker review per baseline’s general honor/shame flag

Overall doctrine risk: Critical (driven by иная плоть; High baseline for нечестие). Routing: Human theologian review, especially 1:7 and the 1:15 repetition.

---

Doctrine 3 — Old Testament Warnings as Types: Israel, Angels, Sodom (Jude 1:5–7, 11)

Available Russian terms	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
Египет / неверующие / погубить (Israel type, 1:5)	неверующие is cognate with baseline’s High-risk faith entry; risks the same “вера = institutional Orthodox identity” drift, here in reverse (outward deliverance without inward trust)	Explicitly connect to the “unbelief despite outward rescue” point; do not let “неверующие” read as merely “non-religious”
ангел / достоинство / жилище / вечные узы (angel type, 1:6)	достоинство (following Synodal precedent) skews toward “personal dignity/self-respect” in ordinary modern Russian rather than “assigned rank/office”	Gloss explicitly: this is a lost position of angelic authority, not wounded pride
Содом и Гоморра / иная плоть (Sodom type, 1:7)	See Doctrine 2 above; proper name itself is Low risk, content is Critical	Treat type and its specific vocabulary (иная плоть) as one theologian-reviewed unit
Каин / Валаам / Корей (1:11)	Low linguistic risk as proper names, but require OT-narrative background for readers whose Bible exposure is largely liturgical-excerpt-based	Supply brief narrative-background glosses (envy/murder; corrupted gift for profit; rebellion against appointed authority) alongside each name on first use

Overall doctrine risk: Medium generally, Critical where it intersects Doctrine 2 (Sodom). Routing: Native speaker review for narrative glosses; theologian review for the Sodom type specifically.

---

Doctrine 4 — Mercy and Rescue of the Wavering (Jude 1:2, 21–23)

Available Russian terms	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
милость (mercy)	Strong Orthodox liturgical resonance (“Господи, помилуй”) — an asset for recognizability but a risk of being heard as a ritual refrain rather than Jude’s concrete pastoral action (future mercy awaited, present mercy shown to doubters)	Anchor each occurrence to its specific referent (God’s future mercy at the judgment, 1:21; active present compassion toward doubters, 1:22–23); keep visibly distinct from благодать
колеблющиеся / сомневающиеся (wavering)	Must not be conflated in tone with the hardened, self-assured нечестивые described throughout 1:4–19	Maintain a compassionate register distinct from the letter’s condemnatory register toward false teachers
исторгать / извлекать (snatch from fire)	Risk of softening into a leisurely, low-urgency “invitation”	Preserve vivid, forceful present-danger rescue imagery
одежда, оскверненная плотью (garment stained, 1:23)	Risk of being read through an Orthodox ritual-purity/liturgical-vestment lens (garments/vestments carry rich devotional associations)	Clarify explicitly this is a moral metaphor for avoiding complicity in sin while rescuing others, not a statement about ritual cleanliness
Textual variant, 1:22–23 (two- vs three-group structure)	Directly affects how many distinct pastoral postures the passage commands	Flag for mandatory human theologian decision before Phase 2 segment translation; record rationale in translation memory

Overall doctrine risk: High/Critical (elevated by the textual variant). Routing: Human theologian review required for the variant decision; native speaker review for tone-fencing between милость and благодать.

---

Doctrine 5 — Kept by God and Presented Blameless (Jude 1:1, 6, 13, 21, 24)

Available Russian terms	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
хранить / сохранять / соблюдать (tēreō, five occurrences)	If rendered inconsistently across occurrences, Jude’s deliberate ironic literary structure is lost (fallen angels not kept → kept for judgment; believers kept by God → commanded to keep themselves → presented blameless)	Treat as a single tracked term-family in translation memory with explicit cross-references linking all five occurrences (1:1, 1:6, 1:13, 1:21, 1:24); do not vary the verb root for stylistic variety
соблюсти от падения (keep from stumbling, 1:24)	Parallels baseline’s Critical “assurance_of_salvation” doctrine (Romans 8); risk of reading either as presumptuous complacency or, conversely, of importing Orthodox synergistic ongoing-uncertainty framing not present in this verse	Apply the same careful pastoral framing baseline requires for Romans 8: confident, God-grounded assurance that does not eliminate the vigilance urged throughout the letter
непорочный / неповинный (blameless)	Risk of being heard as a call to self-achieved moral perfection, given the baseline’s noted Orthodox emphasis on progressive transformation	Frame explicitly as a status God himself accomplishes and presents (echo baseline’s imputed-righteousness caution)
радость / ликование (exultant joy, 1:24)	Low risk	Standard handling

Overall doctrine risk: High (elevated locally to Critical at 1:24’s assurance claim). Routing: Human theologian review for соблюсти от падения and непорочный; native/automated review for the tēreō family’s mechanical consistency check.

---

Doctrine 6 — Doxology and God’s Preserving Power (Jude 1:24–25)

Available Russian terms	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
Спаситель (Savior, title)	Well-established but not separately tracked in baseline; risk of reading as bare honorific detached from concrete saving action	Cross-reference explicitly to спасение/спасать family so the doxology’s climax reads as concrete accomplished rescue (kept, snatched from fire, presented blameless), not mere title language
величие (majesty)	Low risk	Standard handling
держава / сила (might/dominion, kratos)	держава carries a live modern political sense (“great power, sovereign state”); risk of an unintended nationalist-political echo	Prefer сила (or владычество) in expository teaching text; держава may remain in direct Scripture-quotation register only, with a note
власть (authority, exousia)	Must be kept distinct from the baseline’s flagged sensitivity around Romans 13 government-authority language; here the referent is exclusively God’s own supreme authority	State explicitly that this is God’s own authority, not delegated human political authority
прежде всех веков…во все веки / аминь	Low risk, fully established doxological formula	Standard handling

Overall doctrine risk: Medium, with one High-risk fencing item (держава). Routing: Native speaker review sufficient; theologian review not required for this doctrine specifically, though Спаситель should be checked against the Critical salvation entries for consistency.

---

2. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods

2.1 Genuine Vocabulary Gaps (no baseline entry existed; newly supplied)

These concepts appear meaningfully in Jude but had no corresponding entry in the baseline Romans translation memory, despite Romans containing related material. Each requires a fresh entry rather than reuse:

Concept	Gap	Supplied term
ἀγάπη (agapē, general love)	Absent from baseline TM despite frequent Romans usage	любовь (with mandatory contextual anchoring to the divine/covenantal sense at each occurrence, since it is also the ordinary secular word for romantic/familial love)
ἔλεος (eleos, mercy)	Absent; baseline only tracks χάρις/grace	милость
δεσπότης (despotēs, absolute master)	Absent; no Romans occurrence	Владыка
ψυχικός (psychikos, soulish/unspiritual)	Absent; no Romans occurrence	душевные
διακρίνομαι (wavering)	Absent; no Romans occurrence	колеблющиеся / сомневающиеся
δοῦλος (doulos, servant) self-designation	Absent despite Romans 1:1 using the identical Greek self-designation — an oversight in the baseline that this curriculum corrects	раб
Ἰούδας (author’s name)	Absent; proper name unique to this letter	Иуда (with standing disambiguation requirement)

Action item: all seven should be added to the Jude-extended translation memory at Critical/High tier as appropriate (see §4 for ranking), not silently absorbed into adjacent existing entries.

2.2 Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods Requiring Explicit Fencing

Unlike a true vocabulary gap, these are cases where Russian already has a workable term, but that term sits immediately adjacent to another established term (either within this glossary or within Russian Orthodox devotional/folk usage), creating a live risk of the two senses bleeding into one another if not explicitly fenced apart in teaching text.

Neighborhood	Terms in tension	Fencing required
Grace vs. Mercy	благодать (χάρις, Critical baseline) vs. милость (ἔλεος, new High)	Jude uses both in close proximity (1:2, 1:4, 1:21–23). Teaching text must state explicitly that благодать = unmerited favor abused as license by false teachers (1:4), while милость = compassion actively extended to the wavering (1:22–23) and awaited at the judgment (1:21). Never let one substitute for the other.
Faith: objective vs. subjective	вера as “the faith” (fixed apostolic deposit, 1:3, 1:20) vs. вера as personal trust (implicit throughout, cf. 1:5’s неверующие)	Must be flagged per occurrence; a Russian reader defaults to personal-trust or generic-religiosity sense unless the “fixed body of doctrine” sense is made explicit.
Judgment: process vs. sentence	суд (krisis) vs. осуждение (krima)	Both gloss to English “judgment”; discipline required to keep суд = the judicial event/process, осуждение = the verdict/sentence, consistently.
Glory: singular vs. plural sense	слава (doxa, God’s own radiant glory, 1:24–25) vs. высшие власти (doxai, “glorious ones”/angelic powers, 1:8)	A literal plural rendering (“славы”) would reverse the sense for a Russian reader, who would likely read it as “glories [of God]” rather than “glorious beings.” These must be visibly different Russian words, not inflectional variants of the same root.
”Soulish” false-friend	душевные (psychikos, Jude’s negative anthropological category) vs. душевность/душевный (overwhelmingly positive ordinary Russian terms for warmth, sincerity, “русская душа”)	This is the single most acute false-friend risk in the letter. Requires an explicit teaching gloss on every occurrence (1:19) stating the sense is inverted from ordinary usage: spiritually unregenerate, lacking the Spirit, in direct negative contrast to 1:20–21’s Spirit-filled life.
Ascetic-struggle register	подвизаться (epagōnizomai, contend, 1:3) vs. подвиг/подвижник (Orthodox monastic-heroic vocabulary)	Same root family; fence by explicit gloss that this is ordinary-believer doctrinal vigilance, not a call to specialized ascetic vocation.
Tradition vs. transmission-event	однажды преданная (hapax paradotheisē) vs. Предание (Holy Tradition, an ongoing authoritative stream in Orthodox theology)	Fence by stating the ἅπαξ (“once for all,” closed, non-repeatable) sense explicitly; do not let the phrase’s shared root with Предание imply an open, developing deposit.
Sanctification variant	освящены (textual-variant rendering at 1:1) vs. освящение (baseline’s Critical sanctification entry, itself already fenced against обожение/theosis)	The 1:1 variant choice pulls the letter’s opening address directly into the baseline’s flagged East-West sanctification tension; must be a deliberate theologian decision, not default inertia.
Владыка register collision	Владыка applied to Christ (δεσπότης, 1:4) vs. Владыка as the standard contemporary form of address for an Orthodox bishop (“Ваше Преосвященство, Владыка…”)	Surrounding text must make explicit this names Christ’s own absolute lordship, not a borrowed ecclesiastical office-title.
Author-name collision	Иуда (this letter’s author) vs. Иуда (Judas Iscariot, the betrayer — an active idiom for “traitor” in ordinary Russian)	Requires a standing, document-level disambiguation note at every mention of the author, not merely at first occurrence — this is a document-level rule, not a single-term footnote.
Myriads/darkness homograph	тьмы (archaic Synodal numeral idiom for “myriads,” 1:14) vs. тьма (the overwhelmingly dominant modern sense, “darkness”)	Directly adjacent to zophos tou skotous (“gloom of darkness”) one verse earlier (1:13); a reader could momentarily misread archaic “тьмы святых Ангелов” as “the darkness of holy angels” — the opposite of the intended image. Modern-register gloss (множество) recommended alongside any archaic Scripture-quotation use.
Designated beforehand vs. fatalism	предназначенные (progegrammenoi, 1:4) vs. предопределение/судьба (fatalistic-adjacent terms flagged Critical in the baseline election entry)	Fence by clarifying this is prior judicial foreknowledge of a real, culpable choice, not impersonal predetermined fate.
Rebuke register weakening	запретить (epitimaō, 1:9, established Synodal verb, literally “forbid”) vs. its forceful biblical sense of a sovereign, authoritative rebuke	Ordinary modern usage of запретить is administratively weak (“to prohibit/ban”); gloss with обличить/строго упрекнуть where clarity is needed.

---

3. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions

Term	Decision	Rationale
Ἰούδας → Иуда	Transliteration (forced; no viable alternative)	Only established Synodal form; paraphrase is not possible for a proper name, but the collision with Judas Iscariot requires a standing disambiguation note rather than a spelling workaround, since Russian has no orthographic distinction available (unlike English’s Jude/Judas split).
δεσπότης → Владыка	Native paraphrase, NOT transliteration	Transliterating as деспот was considered and firmly rejected: деспот means “tyrant/despot” in ordinary modern Russian — a strongly negative false friend that would reverse the term’s sense entirely. Владыка (native term of absolute ownership-authority, doctrinally sound) is required instead, with a register-collision gloss (see §2.2) against its use as an episcopal title.
σωτήρ → Спаситель	Native paraphrase (existing established term)	Fully settled across Orthodox and Protestant usage; no transliteration considered or needed.
ψυχικός → душевные	Native paraphrase, NOT transliteration	Transliterating toward a cognate like “психический” was considered and rejected: in modern Russian this reads as “psychiatric/mentally ill,” an even worse false friend than the chosen native option. душевные, despite its own false-friend risk (see §2.2), remains the least-bad choice and is standard in existing evangelical Russian translations of 1 Corinthians 2:14/15:44.
ἀμήν, ἀλληλουϊά, Ἀββά → аминь, аллилуия, Авва	Transliteration (established)	Consistent with baseline transliteration standards; retain exactly.
Κάϊν, Βαλαάμ, Κόρε, Σόδομα καὶ Γόμορρα → Каин, Валаам, Корей, Содом и Гоморра	Transliteration (established Synodal proper-name forms)	Standard practice for OT proper names; low linguistic risk in themselves (risk lies in the associated content, not the names).
μυριάς → тьмы (archaic, Scripture-quotation register) / множество (modern, expository register)	Dual strategy: archaic transliteration-adjacent Synodal idiom retained in direct quotation, paraphrase preferred in exposition	Preserves recognizability of the existing Synodal Bible text while avoiding the тьмы/тьма (“myriads”/“darkness”) homograph collision in teaching prose; document both forms in translation memory with usage context specified.
σαρκὸς ἑτέρας → иная плоть	Literal-register paraphrase, NOT a softening euphemism	A euphemistic paraphrase (e.g., a vague “грех Содома”) was considered and rejected because it would lose Jude’s specific point that this sin was categorically different from the ekporneuō named in the same verse; retain literal force but pair with mandatory theologian-reviewed pastoral framing rather than leaving it unguided.
ἀγάπαι → вечери любви	Descriptive paraphrase, NOT transliteration	”Агапы” (direct transliteration) was considered but rejected as opaque to general readers without specialist patristic/liturgical background; вечери любви is transparent and requires only a brief historical footnote rather than a specialist loanword.
σπιλάς → подводные камни (reef image) OR соблазн (Synodal-style interpretive paraphrase)	Paraphrase; final choice pending textual/lexical-tradition decision	Genuine lexical ambiguity in the Greek itself (reef vs. blemish/stain root); this is a translation-tradition choice, not a transliteration question — document which option is used and why.
δόξαι → высшие власти	Interpretive paraphrase, NOT a literal cognate rendering	A literal plural of the baseline’s “слава” root (“славы”) was considered and rejected as reversing the sense for Russian readers (see §2.2); the interpretive Synodal-tradition paraphrase is required instead.

---

4. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities

Ranked by combined doctrinal weight, likelihood of misreading, and cultural/political sensitivity. All Rank 1–7 items require mandatory human theologian review before Phase 2 processing; Rank 8–12 require at minimum native speaker review with theologian escalation on any deviation.

1. Иуда — author/Judas Iscariot name collision (1:1, and every subsequent self-reference). Recurs at every mention, not just first occurrence; Иуда is a live everyday idiom for “traitor” in Russian. Highest-frequency, document-wide risk with no orthographic escape valve.

2. σαρκὸς ἑτέρας, “other flesh” (1:7). Compounds acute doctrinal-precision risk (losing Jude’s “different kind of sin” point) with live, legally and politically charged contemporary Russian public discourse on this exact category. Requires explicit pastoral framing guidance, not translator discretion alone.

3. Textual variant, Jude 1:1 — ἡγιασμένοις (“sanctified”) vs. ἠγαπημένοις (“beloved”). Pulls the letter’s opening address directly into the baseline’s flagged East-West sanctification/theosis tension from the very first verse of the entire curriculum.

4. Textual variant, Jude 1:4–5 — δεσπότην/κύριον referents and κύριος/Ἰησοῦς at 1:5. Direct Christological weight: does the text distinguish Father and Son at 1:4, and is it Jesus himself (not merely “the Lord” generically) who saved Israel out of Egypt at 1:5? Affects how explicitly Christ’s deity/pre-existence is asserted.

5. Textual variant, Jude 1:22–23 — two- vs. three-group structure for showing mercy/rescuing the wavering. Directly determines how many distinct pastoral postures the letter’s central practical application commands; affects the entire “Mercy and Rescue of the Wavering” doctrine unit’s structure.

6. ψυχικός → душевные (1:19). Inverted false-friend risk of the highest severity: the Russian word carries strongly positive everyday connotations (warmth, sincerity, “русская душа”) that are the exact opposite of Jude’s intended negative anthropological category.

7. 1 Enoch citation as “prophecy” (προεφήτευσεν, 1:14–15). Raises a genuine canon-boundary question intersecting the baseline’s High-risk inspiration-of-scripture doctrine; if left unaddressed, either implicitly canonizes 1 Enoch or implicitly undermines confidence in Jude’s own inspired authority — neither acceptable by default silence.

8. δόξαι, “glorious ones” (1:8) vs. δόξα, “glory” (1:24–25). A literal-cognate translation reverses the sense (angelic beings mistaken for God’s own glory); high likelihood of translator error precisely because the baseline’s reused слава entry makes the plural form look like a routine inflection rather than a distinct concept.

9. τηρέω verb-family consistency across five occurrences (1:1, 6, 13, 21, 24). Not a single-verse ambiguity but a structural risk: inconsistent verb choice across any one of the five occurrences silently destroys Jude’s deliberate ironic literary architecture (unkept angels → kept for judgment; kept believers → commanded to keep themselves → presented blameless).

10. однажды преданная / Предание root collision (1:3). Risk is subtle rather than glaring — the Russian phrase looks unremarkable in isolation, but its shared root with a name for an active, load-bearing Orthodox theological category makes silent misreading likely if the ἅπαξ sense is not stated explicitly.

11. благодать/милость fencing (1:2, 1:4, 1:21–23). Both terms are individually well-established and low-ambiguity in isolation, but their close proximity within this short letter creates real risk of functional synonym-blending unless explicitly distinguished in teaching text.

12. τὴρμα/μυριάς: тьмы (myriads) vs. тьма (darkness) homograph, one verse after ζόφος τοῦ σκότους (1:13–14). Lower doctrinal stakes than items 1–11, but high likelihood of momentary reader confusion given the immediate textual proximity of the two senses.

---

5. Summary Recommendation for Phase 2 Handoff

• Merge §1’s term-level decisions into an updated translation_memory.json and bible_term_registry.json for Jude, incrementing version numbers per the baseline’s enforcement protocol, with baseline Romans terms carried over unchanged.
• All five items in Ranked List positions 1–5 (name collision, three textual variants, and the Sodom passage) must receive documented human theologian decisions before any Phase 2 segment translation of Jude 1:1, 1:4–7, or 1:22–23 begins — these are not deviations to flag after the fact but prerequisites to fix the rendering.
• The τηρέω verb-family (Rank 9) should be implemented as a single cross-referenced translation-memory entry with automated consistency validation across all five occurrences, similar in spirit to the baseline’s Romans 1:16–17 and 8:28 “must be identical across documents” rules.
• The standing disambiguation requirement for Иуда (Rank 1) should be implemented as a document-level rule in Phase 2 tooling, not a per-segment flag, since it recurs at every authorial self-reference rather than at isolated points.

---

Companion to 07_semantic_analysis.md and 08_core_glossary.md. Extends, and does not contradict, the baseline Romans translation_memory.json, bible_term_registry.json, and doctrine_risk_registry.json.