Linguistic Gap Analysis
Linguistic Gap Analysis: 2 Peter (English → Sanskrit)
Purpose and Method
This document executes Phase 1 Step 8 for the 2 Peter curriculum, extending — never contradicting — the baseline Romans Language Package. Sanskrit’s categorical difference from vernacular target languages (no first-language speakers; a closed, already-theorized classical philosophical vocabulary) means that “gaps” in this analysis are rarely gaps of availability — Sanskrit has a term for nearly every concept 2 Peter raises — but gaps of neutrality. The recurring finding across both the Romans baseline and this letter is the same: almost every candidate term already belongs to a named school (Advaita Vedānta, Sāṃkhya-Yoga, Pūrva Mīmāṃsā, Nyāya, Purāṇic cosmology, Gauḍīya/Vaiṣṇava bhakti-rasa theology) with its own citable proof-text. The translator’s task is therefore not lexical invention but fencing: selecting the least philosophically-encumbered available term and building a mandatory redefinition note around it at every occurrence, exactly as the baseline models with धार्मिकता, त्राणम्, and पवित्र आत्मा.
2 Peter intensifies this problem relative to Romans in two specific ways:
- Cosmological typology (2:5, 3:5-13) forces a direct confrontation with Purāṇic cyclical cosmology (sṭṣṭi-sthiti-pralaya, mahāpralaya, kalpa) in a way Romans never requires.
- Repeated, letter-thesis-level “knowledge” vocabulary (ἐπίγνωσις/γνῶσις, occurring at 1:2, 1:3, 1:5, 1:6, 1:8, 2:20, 3:18) collides with jñāna-mārga far more persistently than any single Romans term, since it is not one doctrine among many but the letter’s own recurring self-description of the Christian life.
Section 1: Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix
For each curriculum doctrine: the available Sanskrit term(s), their specific classical-school weakness, and the recommended fencing strategy.
1.1 The Reliability and Inspiration of Scripture
| Available Sanskrit Term(s) | Weakness | Recommended Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| भविष्यद्वक्ता / भविष्यवाणी (reused, Low) | Low risk on their own, but load-bearing here as the letter’s central proof (1:19-21) | Retain reused baseline terms; risk is carried by the surrounding apparatus (voice, myth, carried-along), not these terms themselves |
| कल्पितकथा (myth) vs. पुराणम्/इतिहासम् | पुराणम्/इतिहासम् are the canonical Hindu genre-names for sacred/legendary narrative and are not regarded internally as fabricated — using them would collapse Peter’s own eyewitness-history-vs-invented-tale contrast | Use कल्पितकथा exclusively; never let पुराण/इतिहास appear even in explanatory apparatus without explicit disclaiming language |
| ध्वनिः (voice) vs. वाणी/वाच्/शब्दः | वाच्/शब्द triggers Mīmāṃsā’s śabda-brahman doctrine (the Veda’s sound-form held eternal, uncreated, apauruṣeya) — precisely backward from a single historical, personally-spoken utterance | Use ध्वनिः exclusively for this event; never वाच् |
| परमेश्वरस्य वचनम् (Word of God, creative decree) vs. वाच् | Same śabda-brahman risk, extended from the baseline’s covenant entry | Anchor as a point-in-time spoken decree by a personal Creator, never an eternal cosmic sound-principle |
| नीताः (carried along) vs. आवेशः/समावेशः (possession-trance terms) | Possession-trance vocabulary (used of oracular आवेश states) would suggest the human author’s mind was suppressed, contradicting verbal-plenary inspiration through fully engaged human agency | Use नीताः only; never introduce आवेश-family vocabulary even as a rejected gloss without careful framing |
| The core doctrinal contrast itself: apauruṣeya Veda vs. Spirit-moved human authors | This is not a term-collision but a structural doctrine-collision: the Veda is held eternal and unauthored; Scripture here is explicitly authored by named humans at named points under divine superintendence | Mandatory explicit doctrinal contrast note at 1:20-21, every occurrence — the strongest instance of this contrast in the whole curriculum, exceeding even the baseline’s original framing of it |
Gap type: Not missing vocabulary but a crowded neighborhood requiring a structural (not lexical) fence — the apauruṣeya/pratyakṣa-śruti framework is the dominant classical theory of how scripture exists, and it must be named and rejected, not merely avoided by word choice.
1.2 Growing in Christian Virtue
| Available Sanskrit Term(s) | Weakness | Recommended Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| सद्गुणः (virtue/ἀρετή) | गुण is Sāṃkhya’s technical term for prakṛti’s three constituent qualities (sattva-rajas-tamas, Gītā 14) | Mandatory redefinition at every occurrence, structurally identical to the baseline’s धार्मिकता policy: “moral excellence produced by grace,” not a substance-quality of prakṛti |
| ज्ञानम् / परिज्ञानम् (knowledge/ἐπίγνωσις-γνῶσις) | See Section 4, ranked #1 — the letter’s single most persistent collision | Fenced per the term registry; mandatory redefinition at every occurrence given thesis-level frequency, not first-occurrence-only |
| सर्वेश्वरनिष्ठा (godliness/εὐσέβεια) | Built to avoid भक्ति (an entire soteriological mārga per baseline); निष्ठा itself appears in Gītā’s jñāna-niṣṭhā/karma-niṣṭhā discussions | Medium-severity residual risk; flag if निष्ठा begins to read as a “path” designation rather than a disposition |
| प्रेम (love/ἀγάπη) | The specific technical culmination-term of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava bhakti-rasa theology (śraddhā→bhāva→prema) | Mandatory redefinition: God’s self-giving covenantal love and its fruit among believers, not the devotee’s ecstatic emotional attainment-state |
| दमः (self-control) vs. संयम | संयम is Patañjali’s named technical term for the combined dhāraṇā-dhyāna-samādhi practice yielding siddhis | Use दमः; flag if a translator drifts toward संयम for elegance |
| धृतिः (steadfastness) | Minor incidental proximity to dhāraṇā; not itself a named category | Low-residual; no mandatory note required |
Gap type: Crowded neighborhood — virtually every virtue term brushes against Sāṃkhya’s guṇa-theory or Yoga’s aṣṭāṅga system. No true vocabulary gap; the risk is over-precision in the source system bleeding into the target term.
1.3 False Teachers and Their Judgment
| Available Sanskrit Term(s) | Weakness | Recommended Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| मिथ्याशिक्षकः / मिथ्याभविष्यद्वक्ता vs. आचार्यः | आचार्य carries deep reverence as a revered lineage-founder title (Śaṅkarācārya, Rāmānujācārya) | Use शिक्षक-compound only; never आचार्य even in apparatus |
| विनाशकर-मिथ्यामतम् (heresy) vs. पाषण्डः | पाषण्ड is the historical Brahminical polemic term for nāstika (Buddhist/Jain) groups — imports an external orthodoxy-framework foreign to Peter’s point (corruption from within the professing community) | Use the descriptive compound; never पाषण्ड |
| स्वतन्त्रता (false freedom) vs. मुक्तिः/मोक्षः | Directly and ironically juxtaposed with “slaves of corruption” in the same verse (2:19); using the moksha-family root would either compromise its exclusive reservation for true salvation or dignify the false teachers’ counterfeit offer | Absolute forbidden substitution, same tier as मोक्ष for “salvation” |
| वञ्चना (deceit) vs. माया | माया is Advaita’s central technical term for the phenomenal world’s illusory, veiling nature relative to Brahman | Forbidden substitution; treat with severity comparable to the baseline’s ātman/Holy Spirit caution |
| अन्धकारबन्धनम् (Tartarus) vs. नरकः | नरक imports the Purāṇic catalog of named, temporary hells within an ongoing rebirth cycle (Garuḍa Purāṇa) | Use the descriptive compound; never नरक |
| स्वर्गदूतः (angel) vs. देवः | Same reasoning as baseline’s rejection of देव for “God” — devas receive pūjā/yajña; angels never do | Use दूत-compound only |
| विचारः / दण्डः (judgment) vs. न्यायः | न्याय is the proper name of the Nyāya darśana, already excluded in the baseline’s righteousness entry | Use विचार/दण्ड split by function (process vs. sentence) |
| दासीभूताः (slaves of corruption) | Built safely on the baseline-adjacent दासः; low residual risk | No special fencing beyond noting the deliberate contrast with स्वतन्त्रता |
Gap type: Mostly crowded neighborhoods with clean fences already available — this doctrine has the largest number of new Critical/High terms in the letter, but each has a viable, low-baggage descriptive alternative already identified. The recurring pattern is: reject the term that names an entire school/genre/category, prefer plain descriptive Sanskrit compounds.
1.4 The Certainty of Christ’s Return
| Available Sanskrit Term(s) | Weakness | Recommended Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| पुनरागमनम् (parousia) vs. अवतारागमनम् | Structurally parallels the awaited Kalki avatāra — the tenth and still-future daśāvatāra — inviting a false equivalence between Christ’s certain, singular return and an unfulfilled, expected-but-not-yet-occurred avatāra event | Use पुनरागमनम्; mandatory note every occurrence per baseline’s Gītā 4.7-8 citation policy: this is the same already-incarnate, already-risen Son reappearing, not a new descent nor one of a series |
| प्रत्यक्षद्रष्टा (eyewitness) | Strategic borrowing of Nyāya’s pratyakṣa (strongest pramāṇa, direct sense-perception) | Positive borrowing; flag only to prevent confusion with yogic/ṛṣi “inner” mystical perception, which is a different epistemic category even within Nyāya |
| प्रभातज्योतिः (morning star) vs. शुक्रः | शुक्र is the standard Sanskrit name for the planet Venus and for Śukrācārya (guru of the asuras in Purāṇic narrative), with dense Jyotiṣa (astrological) associations | Forbidden substitution; use the descriptive compound only |
| उपहासकाः (scoffers) | Low risk; non-technical | No fencing required |
Gap type: One Critical crowded-neighborhood term (पुनरागमनम्/avatāra); otherwise largely clean, non-technical vocabulary or successful strategic borrowings.
1.5 The Day of the Lord and Final Judgment
| Available Sanskrit Term(s) | Weakness | Recommended Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| प्रभोः दिनम् (Day of the Lord) vs. महाप्रलयः | The single most severe cosmological collision in this letter: mahāpralaya is the periodic, recurring cosmic dissolution ending each kalpa, governed impersonally by kāla or Brahmā’s day/night cycle | Mandatory explicit contrast at every occurrence: this dissolution is linear, final, moral, and singular — never a recurring phase |
| जलप्लावनम् (flood) vs. प्रलयः | Same family collision as above, historically prior in the typology (2:5; 3:6) — प्रलय would retroactively frame the whole flood-to-fire typology as cyclical | Absolute forbidden substitution, explicitly given the same severity tier as मोक्ष/मुक्ति |
| सृष्टिः (creation) | The first member of the sṭṣṭि-sthiti-pralaya triad in Purāṇic/Vedāntic cosmology | Anchor to a singular, purposive, historically-bounded act; not itself forbidden (no better alternative exists) but requires anchoring language |
| महाभूतानि (elements/stoicheia) | Sāṃkhya’s own technical pañca-mahābhūta category | Anchor to final, one-time dissolution, not cyclical re-absorption into prakṛti |
| विघटनम् / विनाशः (dissolve) vs. लयः | लय is a technical term in both Yoga (laya-yoga) and Vedānta, near-synonymous with pralaya | Forbidden substitution; use विघटनम्/विनाशः |
| नवीनं गगनं नूतना च पृथ्वी (new heavens/earth) | Must be distinguished from the recurring “new creation” that follows each pralaya in the endless kalpa-cycle | Explicit note: this “new” means final and permanent, not merely next-in-series |
| अग्निः (fire) | अग्नि is also a major Vedic deity receiving yajña oblations | Present strictly as an instrument of the Creator’s justice, never invoked as or identified with the deity |
Gap type: The single densest crowded neighborhood in the entire 2 Peter Language Package. Every major term in this doctrine cluster (flood, Day of the Lord, creation, elements, dissolve, new heavens/earth) sits adjacent to some stage of the sṭṣṭि-sthiti-pralaya cycle. No individual lexical gap exists — Sanskrit is in fact unusually rich in cosmological-dissolution vocabulary — but that richness is precisely the danger: every available term already belongs to a fully theorized cyclical system. This cluster requires the heaviest apparatus of explicit contrastive notes in the whole curriculum.
1.6 Patience of God’s Timing
| Available Sanskrit Term(s) | Weakness | Recommended Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| दीर्घसहनम् (patience/makrothymia) | Connects to baseline’s providence entry; risk of a karmaphala or impersonal-cosmic-clock reading | Anchor as personal, purposive forbearance, per baseline providence policy |
| मनःपरिवर्तनम् (repentance) vs. पश्चात्तापः/प्रायश्चित्तम् | पश्चात्ताप reduces to mere remorse; प्रायश्चित्त imports dharmaśāstra’s ritual-penance system | Use the literal calque (mind-turning); avoid both rejected alternatives |
| सहस्रं वर्षाणि (a thousand years) | Risk only if read as a chronological claim inviting reconciliation with Purāṇic yuga-length arithmetic (432,000-year Kali Yuga, etc.) | Render plainly with numerals; flag against any chronological-harmonization gloss |
Gap type: Minor — mostly clean vocabulary, Medium risk overall, no true gaps.
1.7 Divine Nature and Escaping Corruption
| Available Sanskrit Term(s) | Weakness | Recommended Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| दिव्यस्वभावस्य सहभागिनः (partakers of divine nature) | The letter’s second-most severe collision (see Section 4, ranked #2): risks Advaita’s ātman-Brahman identity, Vaiṣṇava sādharmya-mukti (a genuinely close structural parallel), or generic deification | Mandatory three-way explicit distinction at every occurrence (see registry note); this is moral/relational participation by grace, not ontological merger nor self-achieved attainment |
| दिव्यः (divine, adj.) vs. दैविकः | दैविक sits too close to दैवम् (“fate”), already rejected under the baseline’s providence entry | Use दिव्यः only |
| विनाशः (corruption/phthora) | Must be distinguished from Sāṃkhya-Yoga’s guṇa-bondage/kaivalya framework, where escape comes through discriminative knowledge (viveka), not grace | Anchor escape as grace-given, not self-achieved metaphysical discrimination |
| दुरभिलाषा (evil desire) vs. कामः/तृष्णा/वासना | कामः is a legitimate puruṣārtha; तृष्णा is the Buddhist Second Noble Truth term; वासना is Sāṃkhya-Yoga/Vedānta’s latent-karmic-impression term | दुरभिलाषा is the least encumbered; no better alternative exists, and none is needed |
Gap type: One Critical crowded-neighborhood term with a genuinely close positive structural parallel (Vaiṣṇava sādharmya-mukti) that must be engaged, not merely fenced by silence — this is the one place in the letter where the best strategy is explicit comparative engagement rather than pure avoidance.
Section 2: Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods Requiring Fencing
2.1 True Missing Vocabulary (rare in this letter)
Consistent with the baseline’s framing note, 2 Peter presents almost no cases of genuine lexical absence. The two closest candidates:
- “Tartarus” as a specific confinement-state distinct from both temporary Purāṇic hells and any final hell — Sanskrit has no single word for a temporary-but-not-rebirth-bound holding place for judged spiritual beings. Resolved by a descriptive compound (अन्धकारबन्धनम्), not a coinage — following the baseline’s own established preference for descriptive phrases over risky single-word borrowings (cf. “adoption”).
- “Myth” in the specific sense of a known-fabricated religious tale — Sanskrit’s major narrative-genre vocabulary (पुराण, इतिहास, कथा) is not built around a fabricated/historical binary the way Greek mythos/historia is; कल्पितकथा is a constructed descriptive compound rather than an inherited term, paralleling सुसमाचारः’s status in the baseline as a coined-not-borrowed solution.
In both cases the “gap” is filled the same way the baseline fills its gaps: a transparent descriptive Sanskrit compound rather than an existing single term, because every existing single term carries unwanted freight.
2.2 Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods Requiring Fencing
By far the dominant pattern in this letter. Four crowded neighborhoods, ranked by density of collision:
- Cosmological-dissolution vocabulary (flood, Day of the Lord, creation, elements, dissolve, new heavens/earth) — clustered around the Purāṇic sṭṣṭि-sthiti-pralaya cycle and mahāpralaya doctrine. See Section 1.5. This is the single densest neighborhood in the curriculum, denser even than any single cluster in the Romans baseline.
- Knowledge vocabulary (ἐπίγνωσις/γνῶσις) — clustered around jñāna-mārga (Bhagavad Gītā 4-7, 13, 18) and the Upaniṣadic mahāvākyas already flagged for “Holy Spirit” in the baseline. Unlike other doctrines, this collision is not confined to one or two verses but recurs as the letter’s own repeated self-description of the Christian life (six occurrences).
- Devotional-soteriological vocabulary (प्रेम/agapē, भक्ति-adjacent terms generally) — clustered around Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava bhakti-rasa theology’s staged progression toward prema.
- False-teacher polemic vocabulary (heresy, false teacher, deceit) — clustered around either internal-Brahminical polemic categories (पाषण्ड) or Advaita’s māyā doctrine; resolved cleanly by preferring plain descriptive compounds over any single loaded term.
The fencing strategy is uniform across all four: never adopt the term that names the school/category itself; prefer the least-technical available synonym or a transparent descriptive compound; attach a mandatory redefinition note at every Critical/High occurrence, not merely at first use, when the term recurs as a doctrine’s own thesis-level vocabulary (as with knowledge, sect 2.2.2).
Section 3: Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions
Following the baseline’s precedent (मसीहः transliterated; त्राणम् paraphrased rather than borrowed), this curriculum applies the same test: transliterate proper names and terms with no meaningful semantic content to translate; paraphrase/coin descriptive compounds for theological concepts, however tempting a single existing Sanskrit word may be.
| Term | Decision | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Simon Peter, Noah, Lot, Balaam, Sodom, Gomorrah | Transliterate | Proper names; Serampore-tradition precedent (cf. baseline’s David, Israel) |
| Christ (Χριστός) | Transliterate (ख्रीष्टः) | Per baseline transliteration table; avoids assimilation to “anointed teacher” figures |
| Jesus | Transliterate (यीशुः) | Reused exactly from baseline |
| Abba-style intimacy terms | N/A — not present in 2 Peter | — |
| Tartarus (ταρταρόω) | Paraphrase (अन्धकारबन्धनम्), not transliterate or borrow नरक | A transliteration (e.g. टार्टरस्) would be doctrinally inert but register as a foreign curiosity rather than a meaningful confinement-state; नरक imports Purāṇic baggage. The descriptive compound communicates the concept without either problem. |
| Myth (μῦθος) | Paraphrase (कल्पितकथा) | Same logic; a transliteration (म्यथस्) would fail to communicate to a Sanskrit-literate reader at all, defeating the term’s rhetorical purpose in the passage |
| Parousia (παρουσία) | Paraphrase (पुनरागमनम्), not transliterate | Unlike “Messiah” (a proper title with no functional Sanskrit equivalent, hence transliterated in the baseline), “coming/return” is a functional concept with an available (if risky) native compound; transliteration would strip the concept of any comprehensibility for the intended scholarly audience, who need to actively parse the avatāra contrast, not read past an opaque loanword |
| Savior (σωτήρ) | Paraphrase (त्राता) | Deliberately built on the existing त्राणम् root rather than transliterated or borrowed from मोक्ष-family vocabulary, preserving the Greek sōtēr/sōtēria pairing structurally in Sanskrit |
| Amen, Hallelujah (if occurring in closing doxology, 3:18) | Transliterate (आमीन्, हल्लेलूया) | Per baseline’s established transliteration standards for liturgical exclamations |
General rule for this curriculum: transliteration is reserved for (a) proper names, (b) established liturgical exclamations, and (c) terms functioning as unique titles with no native functional equivalent (Messiah-class terms). Every other theological concept — however tempting a ready-made Sanskrit word might be — receives a paraphrase/compound specifically engineered to avoid an existing school’s technical apparatus, per the baseline’s own core methodology.
Section 4: Ranked List of This Letter’s Highest-Risk Ambiguities
Ranked by combined severity of (a) doctrinal centrality to 2 Peter, (b) specificity/citability of the colliding classical doctrine, and (c) frequency of recurrence across the letter.
Rank 1 — “Knowledge” (ἐπίγνωσις / γνῶσις): परिज्ञानम् / ज्ञानम्
Why highest-risk: Unlike every other Critical term in this Language Package (including the baseline’s own), this is not a single-verse or single-doctrine collision but the letter’s own recurring self-description of the Christian life itself (1:2, 1:3, 1:5, 1:6, 1:8, 2:20, 3:18). Every other Critical term in this document collides with one classical system at specific verses; this term collides with jñāna-mārga’s entire framework (Bhagavad Gītā 4-7, 13, 18) every time 2 Peter restates its own thesis. A reader trained in Advaita or classical Yoga who encounters “growth in ज्ञान leads to त्राण” across six recurring instances, without a note at every single one, risks hearing the whole letter as a jñāna-mārga tract with a Christian vocabulary veneer. Mandatory mitigation: redefinition note at every occurrence, not first-occurrence-only — an explicit departure from the “first occurrence per document” default elsewhere in this Language Package, justified by this term’s exceptional frequency and centrality.
Rank 2 — “Partakers of the Divine Nature”: दिव्यस्वभावस्य सहभागिनः
Why high-risk: Sits at the intersection of three distinct classical parallels rather than one: (1) Advaita’s ātman-Brahman identity, (2) Vaiṣṇava sādharmya-mukti (a genuinely structurally close doctrine, not a superficial false-friend, requiring engagement rather than mere avoidance), and (3) generic deification readings. This is the one place in the curriculum where silent avoidance is insufficient and active comparative theological explanation is required.
Rank 3 — “The Flood” / “The Day of the Lord”: जलप्लावनम् / प्रभोः दिनम् (vs. FORBIDDEN प्रलयः/महाप्रलयः)
Why high-risk: The single most severe forbidden-substitution risk in the letter, comparable in absoluteness to मोक्ष for “salvation,” but structurally more dangerous because it spans a typological argument (2:5 → 3:6-7) rather than a single term. A single lapse into प्रलय anywhere in this typological chain would retroactively reframe the entire flood-to-fire argument as one more turn of an endless cosmic wheel — the precise opposite of Peter’s linear-history argument.
Rank 4 — Christ’s Return: पुनरागमनम् (vs. Kalki-avatāra structural parallel)
Why high-risk: Distinct from the baseline’s Incarnation risk (देहधारणम् vs. avatāra generally) in a specific way: Kalki is specifically the awaited, not-yet-occurred, final avatāra, making the structural parallel to “awaited future coming” unusually exact and therefore unusually seductive to a reader already primed by the baseline’s incarnation discussion.
Rank 5 — Scripture’s Origin: the apauruṣeya/Spirit-carried contrast at 1:20-21
Why high-risk: The core passage’s own climactic verse. Not a single-word collision but a structural doctrine-collision between two complete, mutually exclusive theories of how scripture comes to exist. Requires the heaviest explanatory apparatus in the core passage itself, not merely a vocabulary note.
Rank 6 — False Freedom vs. Slavery to Corruption: स्वतन्त्रता / दासीभूताः (2:19)
Why high-risk: Uniquely dangerous because the risk is intra-verse irony collapse — if मुक्ति/मोक्ष leaked into this verse even once, it would simultaneously (a) violate the absolute salvation-vocabulary reservation and (b) accidentally validate the false teachers’ own rhetoric as a legitimate soteriological claim, a double failure mode not present elsewhere in the letter.
Rank 7 — Virtue and Godliness: सद्गुणः / सर्वेश्वरनिष्ठा
Why moderate-high risk: Structurally identical to the baseline’s धार्मिकता problem (an abstract noun built on a term — गुण — that already names a complete, organizing category of a major darśana), but distributed across a short list (1:5-7) rather than concentrated in one thesis term, slightly lowering practical risk relative to Ranks 1-6.
Rank 8 — Deceit and Heresy: वञ्चना / विनाशकर-मिथ्यामतम्
Why lower-but-real risk: Both rejected-alternative collisions (माया, पाषण्ड) are severe in isolation, but the chosen replacements are unusually clean descriptive compounds with little residual ambiguity once selected — the risk is concentrated in translator vigilance against reverting to the more “elegant” classical near-synonym, not in any inherent weakness of the chosen terms themselves.
Summary Table: Severity of Gap Type by Doctrine
| Doctrine | Dominant Gap Type | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| Reliability/Inspiration of Scripture | Structural doctrine-collision (apauruṣeya vs. authored) | Critical |
| Divine Nature/Escaping Corruption | Crowded neighborhood, triple collision | Critical |
| Day of the Lord/Final Judgment | Densest crowded neighborhood in curriculum | Critical |
| Certainty of Christ’s Return | Crowded neighborhood, single sharp collision | Critical |
| False Teachers and Their Judgment | Multiple crowded neighborhoods, clean fences available | High |
| Growing in Christian Virtue | Crowded neighborhood, distributed risk | High |
| Patience of God’s Timing | Minor; largely clean vocabulary | Medium |
This analysis extends, and does not contradict, the baseline Romans translation_memory.json, bible_term_registry.json, and doctrine_risk_registry.json. All specific term decisions referenced here are recorded in full in analysis/08_core_glossary.md and assets/bible_term_registry.json for this curriculum.