Linguistic Gap Analysis
Linguistic Gap Analysis: Ephesians (English/Greek → Sanskrit)
Curriculum: Ephesians 1–6
Core passage: Ephesians 2:1–10
Language pair: English–Sanskrit
Status: Phase 1, Step 8 — builds directly on 07_semantic_analysis.md and 08_core_glossary.md; supplies the gap-analysis layer required before translation_memory.json is version-incremented for this curriculum. All terms below are cited from, not re-derived against, the Romans baseline Language Package and the Ephesians-specific bible_term_registry.json and 08_core_glossary.md entries already produced.
Categorical reminder (per 12_ai_translation_requirements.md): Sanskrit has no living first-language speaker community. Every “gap” identified here is a gap in a fixed, closed classical corpus of already-theorized philosophical/liturgical vocabulary, not a gap in everyday usage that a living community might casually fill. This has two consequences that shape the whole analysis below: (1) there is close to zero truly neutral vocabulary — nearly every promising candidate term already belongs to some darśana, and (2) once a rendering is fixed for this pipeline, there is no informal community usage to correct it; the fixed choice becomes the tradition.
1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix
For each of the nine curriculum doctrines: the available Sanskrit term(s), their weaknesses (crowding, absence, or false-neutrality), and the recommended strategy already adopted or reinforced here.
1.1 Salvation by Grace through Faith
| Element | Available terms | Weaknesses | Recommended strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| grace | अनुग्रहः (BASELINE) | Even the least-encumbered available term still operates, in its one philosophical precedent (Rāmānuja), within a devotion-response framework | Reuse exactly; mandatory karmaphala/prasāda contrast note at every occurrence in Eph 2:4–9, 4:7 |
| faith | विश्वासः (BASELINE) | Comparatively untheorized — this is a strength here, not a weakness | Reuse exactly |
| salvation | त्राणम् (BASELINE) | None significant; well-fenced against मोक्ष/मुक्ति/निर्वाण | Reuse exactly; render verb forms (त्रातः/त्राताः स्थ) to preserve Eph 2:5,8’s perfect-passive theology (done to the subject, not achieved) |
| redemption | क्रयत्राणम् (NEW, coined) | No existing Sanskrit lexeme names “release effected by a price paid by another” without invoking either √muc (मोक्ष-family) or a bare commercial loan-word; this is a genuine vocabulary gap, not a crowding problem | Coin on √trā, explicit “purchased by another, not self-released” note |
| gift (of salvation) | दानम् (NEW) | Crowded: दान is inseparable in classical usage from dāna-puṇya, the merit-generating-for-the-giver economy | Retain दानम् but mandatory note reversing the direction of merit (giver=God, no puṇya accrues to receiver) |
| works / good works | कर्माणि / सत्कर्माणि (NEW) | Maximally crowded: कर्म is the single most theorized causal category in all of classical Indian thought (karma-phala) | No viable alternative exists — कर्म must be used; strategy is not avoidance but mandatory sequencing notes (2:9 excludes it as ground; 2:10 affirms it strictly as fruit, always stated after grace) |
| mercy vs. grace | कृपा / अनुग्रहः (both reused/repurposed) | Risk of collapsing Paul’s own two-term distinction (ἔλεος vs χάρις, 2:4) into a single Sanskrit word | Enforce strict non-interchangeability: कृपा = compassion toward misery; अनुग्रहः = favor toward guilt |
| wrath | क्रोधः (NEW) | Crowded by Purāṇic myth-cycles of episodic divine anger (Rudra, Kālī) | Retain क्रोधः; mandatory note: settled judicial disposition, not episodic mythological passion |
1.2 Election and Predestination in Christ
| Element | Available terms | Weaknesses | Recommended strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| election | परमेश्वरस्य वरणम् (BASELINE) | None new; well-fenced against भाग्य/दैव | Reuse exactly |
| predestined | पूर्वनिर्णयः (NEW, coined) | Genuine gap: classical Sanskrit has no term for “a personal God’s prior, timed decision” — निर्णय itself names a human argumentative conclusion (Mīmāṃsā/Nyāya pūrvapakṣa→uttarapakṣa) | Coin पूर्वनिर्णय on this model, explicitly repurposed for divine (not human-argumentative) determination; must be kept distinct from वरणम् (the choosing itself) — predestination is the timing/comprehensiveness, election is the choice |
| will of God | इच्छा (NEW) | Crowded (lower priority): Kashmir Śaiva icchā-śakti triad | Acceptable; note is optional/lower-priority given regional (not pan-Indian) scope of the risk |
| purpose | उद्देशः (NEW) | Minimal — safe default | Prefer over इच्छा wherever “aim/intent” rather than “desire” is meant |
| inheritance | उत्तराधिकारः (NEW) | Crowded by named legal schools (दायभाग/मिताक्षरा) governing partial, birth-order-conditioned shares | Avoid दाय-family entirely; उत्तराधिकारः is a genuine gap-filling neutral coinage naming full, undivided heirship |
1.3 The Church as the Body of Christ
| Element | Available terms | Weaknesses | Recommended strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| church | मण्डली (BASELINE) | None new | Reuse exactly |
| body/members | शरीरम् / अङ्गानि (NEW) | Crowded: कायः (Buddhist trikāya) rejected; भी Vedāntic ātman/śarīra dualism (body as discardable vessel) risks reframing “member of the body” as a temporary shell | शरीरम्/अङ्गानि retained; mandatory note: permanent, organic, inseparable union with the Head, not a vessel awaiting release |
| head | शिरस् (NEW) | प्रधानः (the obvious “chief” synonym) is crowded — it is Sāṃkhya’s own technical synonym for prakṛti | Use literal शिरस् throughout to preserve one controlling organic metaphor across both Christ-church and husband-wife referents |
| fullness | पूर्णता (NEW) | Single highest-crowding item in the whole letter: overlaps almost verbatim with the Īśa Upaniṣad’s pūrṇam mantra, Advaita’s foundational statement of Brahman’s impersonal infinite plenitude | Abstract-noun पूर्णता (never bare पूर्णम्); mandatory personhood/relational-indwelling note at every occurrence, strongest at 3:19 |
| unity | ऐक्यम् (NEW) | Second-highest-crowding item: direct terminological overlap with Advaita’s aikya/tādātmya (ātman-Brahman non-dual identity) | Mandatory note at every occurrence (4:3,13): relational/ethical oneness among distinct persons, never identity-collapse |
| heavenly places | दिव्यलोकः (NEW) | स्वर्गः explicitly rejected — named impermanent, merit-exhausted realm at Gītā 9.21 | दिव्यलोकः retained as the gap-filling neutral coinage for Christ’s permanent reign |
| rulers/authorities (cosmic, subordinated) | शासकाः, सत्ताधारिणः (NEW) | अधिकारिणः avoided (Mīmāṃsā/Vedānta adhikāra overtone) | Retain plain governance vocabulary |
1.4 Unity of Jews and Gentiles in One New Humanity
| Element | Available terms | Weaknesses | Recommended strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| gentiles | अन्यजातीयाः (BASELINE) | None new | Reuse exactly |
| one new humanity | एका नवा मानवता (NEW, coined) | Genuine gap requiring active avoidance of the “obvious” word: पुरुषः is the literal gloss of ἄνθρωπος but is (a) Sāṃkhya’s eternal unchanging conscious principle (cannot be “created new”) and (b) the Puruṣa-sūkta’s varṇa-origin cosmic body (RV 10.90) — precisely the wrong association for a doctrine about abolishing an ethnic dividing wall | Coin on मानव- root; never पुरुष in this doctrine’s vocabulary anywhere in the curriculum |
| dividing wall / reconcile / access | विभाजिका भित्तिः, सन्धानम्, प्रवेशः (NEW) | प्रवेशः ties to baseline’s varṇa/adhikāra-restricted-access caution (Universal Scope of Gospel) | Retain; keep universal-access language unqualified per baseline escalation rule |
| fellow heirs | सहोत्तराधिकारी (NEW) | Same दायभाग caution as “inheritance” | Retain neutral compound |
1.5 The Mystery of Christ Revealed
| Element | Available terms | Weaknesses | Recommended strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| mystery | रहस्यम् (NEW) | Structural reversal risk, not mere crowding: Vedāntic/Tantric रहस्य/गुह्य names truth restricted to qualified initiates (adhikārī) via guru-mediated transmission — the opposite movement of Paul’s μυστήριον (a truth now publicly proclaimed) | Mandatory reversal-note at every occurrence (1:9; 3:3–9; 5:32; 6:19); never गुह्यम् (Tantric secret-rite term) or निगूढतत्त्वम् (imports Sāṃkhya तत्त्व apparatus) |
| stewardship | व्यवस्था (NEW) | Mild dharmaśāstra “formal ruling” overtone | Context (“stewardship of this grace”) sufficiently disambiguates |
1.6 Spiritual Warfare and the Armor of God
| Element | Available terms | Weaknesses | Recommended strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| armor of God | परमेश्वरस्य कवचम् (NEW) | कवच is a named, widely-practiced genre (kavaca-stotra, e.g. Durgā Kavacam) — mantric verses recited for their own ritually-efficacious protective power | Mandatory note distinguishing moral/doctrinal realities put on by conviction from mantra recited for automatic protective effect |
| cosmic powers of evil | तमसः लोकाधिपतयः / दुष्टशक्तयः (NEW) | लोकपालाः/दिक्पालाः (benevolent guardian-deities) and named Purāṇic demon-classes (असुर/राक्षस/पिशाच) each import an independent mythological cosmology | Use generic, morally-marked compounds (दुष्ट- prefix) rather than any named class; avoid bare आत्मन्-compounds to protect Holy Spirit distinction |
| word of God (rhēma) | परमेश्वरस्य वचनम् (NEW) | वाच्/वाक् rejected — activates Vāc-theology/śabda-brahman | वचनम् retained as ordinary “word/speech,” no cosmic-sound doctrine |
| prayer | प्रार्थना (BASELINE-consistent) | Distinguish from Vedic āhvāna/homa (efficacy through exact mantra performance) | Retain relational framing |
1.7 Household Codes and Christ-Centered Relationships
| Element | Available terms | Weaknesses | Recommended strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| submission | अधीनता (NEW) | Crowded by Manusmṛti 5.148/9.3’s one-directional lifelong female-dependency doctrine | Mandatory pairing with husband’s co-equal sacrificial-love command (5:25) at every occurrence; never presented as one-directional |
| head (husband-wife) | शिरस् (see 1.3) | Same crowding avoided via literal organic rendering | Consistent with church-Christ usage |
| slave/master | दासः / स्वामी (NEW) | दास carries some dharmaśāstra caste/servile-status association | Note: 6:9’s “same heavenly Master” clause subverts rather than reinforces hierarchy |
| obey (children/parents) | आज्ञां पालयन्तु (NEW) | Risk of collapsing into putra-dharma (filial-duty performance) | Frame explicitly “in the Lord” (6:1), not generic duty |
| mystery of marriage | रहस्यम् (same as 1.5) | Same reversal-note requirement | Apply consistently |
1.8 Gifts for Building Up the Church
| Element | Available terms | Weaknesses | Recommended strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| spiritual gifts | आत्मिकं वरदानम् (BASELINE) | Well-fenced against सिद्धि (aṣṭasiddhi) | Reuse exactly |
| apostle/prophet/evangelist/pastor/teacher | प्रेषितः, भविष्यद्वक्ता, सुसमाचारप्रचारकः, पालकः, उपदेशकः | गुरुः rejected throughout (guru-śiṣya-paramparā); गोपालः rejected (Kṛṣṇa-Gopāla epithet) | Maintain baseline/derived terms; no additional gap |
| maturity | प्रौढत्वम् (NEW) | सिद्धि-family and पुरुष both rejected | Retain प्रौढत्वम् |
| equipping | सुसज्जीकरणम् (NEW) | None significant | Retain |
1.9 Walking in Newness of Life
| Element | Available terms | Weaknesses | Recommended strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| walk/conduct | आचारः/आचरणम् (NEW) | Crowded by dharmaśāstra’s sadācāra (prescribed varṇa-conduct) | Anchor every occurrence explicitly to “conduct flowing from new identity in Christ,” never prescribed caste-duty |
| old self/new self | पुराणः जनः / नवः जनः (NEW, coined) | पुरुषः rejected for the same Sāṃkhya/Puruṣa-sūkta reasons as “one new humanity” | जनः (“person”) is the gap-filling neutral term; consistent across both doctrines |
| darkness/light | अन्धकारः / प्रकाशः (NEW) | तमस् rejected — Sāṃkhya guṇa-theory constituent, not a moral category | Retain अन्धकारः, never तमस् |
| filled with the Spirit | पवित्रेण आत्मना पूर्णाः भवत (NEW, compound) | Compounds both the πλήρωμα/pūrṇam caution and the mandatory Holy Spirit personhood note — highest-caution Spirit-language after 3:19 | Treat every occurrence as requiring both notes simultaneously |
| idolatry | अन्यदेवाराधना (NEW) | मूर्तिपूजा rejected — names the target audience’s own mainstream devotional practice, not Paul’s specific target (covetousness as rival god) | Retain अन्यदेवाराधना; shifts center from image-form to misplaced allegiance |
| created | सृष्टः (NEW) | Broadly shares vocabulary with sṣṭi-sthiti-pralaya cyclical cosmology | Note: personal, purposive, once-for-all act “in Christ,” not a cyclical cosmic process |
2. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods
These are two structurally different problems and require different fixes. Missing vocabulary means no existing classical Sanskrit term denotes the concept at all, so a new compound must be coined from safe roots. Crowded semantic neighborhoods means a term exists and is intelligible, but it is already the property of a specific, named classical school, and using it imports that school’s whole apparatus unless fenced by a mandatory note.
2.1 Genuine vocabulary gaps (coinage required)
| Concept | Why no existing term serves | Coinage adopted |
|---|---|---|
| Redemption (price-paid rescue by another) | Every √muc-family term (मोक्ष, मुक्ति, विमोचन) is annexed by the Self-liberation soteriologies | क्रयत्राणम् (√trā + “purchase”) |
| Predestination (God’s prior, timed, sovereign decision) | निर्णय exists but only as human argumentative conclusion; no term for a personal deity’s prior determination | पूर्वनिर्णयः |
| One new humanity (a genuinely created corporate identity) | पुरुषः, the obvious gloss, is metaphysically incapable of being “created new” | एका नवा मानवता |
| Old self / new self | Same पुरुषः incapacity | पुराणः जनः / नवः जनः |
| Seal of the Spirit (as internal, invisible divine ownership-mark placed at belief) | मुद्रा exists but only as physical branding-rite or ritual hand-gesture | मुद्रा/मुद्रांकितः retained with explicit non-ritual note (not a true gap so much as a partial-fit borrowing) |
| Fullness (relational, personal indwelling completeness) | पूर्णम् is fully occupied by the Upaniṣadic mantra’s impersonal-infinite sense | पूर्णता (abstract-noun distancing) |
| Inheritance (undivided, full heirship) | दाय-family names only partial, conditioned shares | उत्तराधिकारः |
| Idolatry (misplaced ultimate allegiance, not image-worship per se) | मूर्तिपूजा names the wrong target (mainstream devotional practice itself) | अन्यदेवाराधना |
2.2 Crowded neighborhoods requiring mandatory fencing (term exists, must be disambiguated every time)
Ranked roughly by severity of the collision:
- आत्मा / पूर्ण / ऐक्य cluster — the Advaita core-identity vocabulary (ātman = Brahman; pūrṇam; aikya/tādātmya). This is not three separate small risks but one interlocking semantic field. Holy Spirit language (पवित्र आत्मा), fullness language (पूर्णता, especially 3:19 and 5:18’s “filled with the Spirit”), and unity language (ऐक्यम्, 4:3,13) all sit inside this single crowded neighborhood and must be fenced together, not treated as independent risks.
- रहस्य/गुह्य cluster — guru-mediated, initiate-restricted esoteric secrecy vs. Paul’s publicly-proclaimed mystery. Structural reversal, not mere overlap.
- कर्म cluster — karma-phala’s automatic moral-causal law vs. grace/works-as-fruit. Unavoidable vocabulary (कर्माणि/सत्कर्माणि) requiring sequencing discipline rather than substitution.
- पुरुष cluster — Sāṃkhya’s eternal conscious principle and the Puruṣa-sūkta varṇa-origin myth. Successfully avoided by coining मानवता/जनः rather than fenced, since fencing an unavoidable पुरुष would be weaker than simply not using it.
- कवच cluster — the kavaca-stotra mantric-protection genre vs. armor as moral/doctrinal conviction.
- तमस् / guṇa-theory cluster — avoided (अन्धकारः used instead) rather than fenced, for the same reason as #4.
- दाय/दायभाग cluster — partial, conditioned inheritance-law vs. full heirship; avoided via उत्तराधिकारः rather than fenced.
- मूर्तिपूजा cluster — avoided via अन्यदेवाराधना rather than fenced, since fencing would require constantly reassuring the reader that their own devotional practice is not being denounced — better to simply not use the word.
- दास/caste-status cluster — cannot be avoided (household-service vocabulary has no caste-free classical alternative); fenced instead, via the “same heavenly Master” subversion note.
- Manusmṛti household-dependency cluster (अधीनता) — fenced via mandatory mutual-submission pairing, since there is no other classical term for voluntary relational ordering under another.
2.3 Pattern observed
Where coinage was possible without loss of intelligibility (redemption, predestination, one new humanity, old/new self, fullness-as-abstract-noun, inheritance, idolatry), this package prefers avoidance-by-coinage over fencing-by-note, consistent with the baseline’s own preference (e.g. its treatment of “salvation” vs. मोक्ष). Fencing-by-note is reserved for cases where no viable substitute exists because the concept is inescapably tied to common, unavoidable vocabulary (कर्म, दास, शिरस्, आचार, अधीनता) or where the collision is with the single most consequential doctrine in the whole Language Package (आत्मा/Advaita) and must therefore be taught explicitly and repeatedly rather than dodged.
3. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions
3.1 Transliterate (proper nouns and fixed liturgical forms — per Serampore precedent, reused from baseline 12_ai_translation_requirements.md)
| Term | Sanskrit form |
|---|---|
| Jesus | यीशुः |
| Christ | ख्रीष्टः |
| Paul | पौलः |
| Abraham | अब्राहामः |
| David | दाविद् |
| Moses | मोशेः |
| Isaiah | यशायाः |
| Israel | इस्राएलः |
| Abba | अब्बा |
| Amen | आमीन् |
| Hallelujah | हल्लेलूया |
| Messiah | मसीहः |
New for this curriculum: ख्रीष्टः must additionally be transliterated in the fixed locative ख्रीष्टे for the recurring “in Christ” formula (1:3–14; 2:6,10,13; 4:32), which functions in Ephesians as the letter’s central identity-marker. This is a transliteration decision, not a paraphrase one: no attempt should be made to render ἐν Χριστῷ periphrastically (e.g. “in union with the Anointed One”), since consistency of the fixed proper-name locative is itself doctrinally load-bearing across the whole letter.
3.2 Paraphrase / compound-coin (theological technical terms — never transliterated, since a transliterated Greek loan-word would communicate nothing to a Sanskrit-literate reader trained in the classical philosophical idiom)
All Critical- and High-risk doctrinal terms in this package (mystery, redemption, predestined, fullness, one new humanity, old/new self, made-alive-with-Christ cluster, fragrant offering, filled-with-the-Spirit) are deliberately rendered as descriptive Sanskrit compounds built on safe roots, never transliterated. The rationale, consistent with the baseline’s own treatment of “gospel” (सुसमाचारः, not a Greek loan) and “salvation” (त्राणम्, not σωτηρία transliterated): this audience — seminarians, Indologists, classically trained pandits, existing Christian-Sanskrit-liturgy users — will actively parse compound roots for their philosophical content. A transliterated loan-word would be inert; a well-formed compound on native roots is the only way to make the doctrinal claim legible and debatable within the target idiom, which is the whole point of a scholarly/liturgical Language Package as opposed to a vernacular one.
3.3 Borderline case requiring explicit ruling: “mystery” (μυστήριον)
Because Ephesians uses μυστήριον five times across four distinct referents (God’s hidden plan, 1:9; Christ/Jew-Gentile union, 3:3–9; marriage, 5:32; the gospel, 6:19), the temptation to transliterate (“मिस्तेरियम्”) to avoid the रहस्य/गुह्य collision was considered and rejected. A transliteration would sidestep the collision but at the cost of total unintelligibility to the target audience and would forfeit the pedagogically valuable opportunity to teach the reversal (secrecy-to-all-now-proclaimed vs. secrecy-to-initiates-only) that रहस्यम् uniquely makes visible by contrast. Paraphrase-with-mandatory-note is retained as the ruling.
3.4 Borderline case: “armor of God”
कवचम् is retained rather than a purely descriptive paraphrase (e.g. “protective covering,” आवरणम्) because कवच’s very recognizability as a named devotional genre (kavaca-stotra) is precisely what allows the mandatory note to do its disambiguating work by named contrast (“this is not a kavaca-stotra recited for ritual efficacy, but…”). A blander paraphrase would remove the vivid genre-contrast this audience is positioned to recognize and evaluate.
4. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities in Ephesians
Ranked by combined severity of (a) doctrinal centrality to this curriculum’s nine named doctrines, (b) depth/textual explicitness of the competing classical Sanskrit doctrine, and (c) frequency of occurrence across the letter.
- Holy Spirit / ātman-Brahman identity, intensified by “unity of the Spirit” (4:3–4) and “grieved” (4:30) and “filled with” (5:18) — the single highest-stakes collision inherited from the Romans baseline, now compounded three additional ways specific to Ephesians. Every occurrence requires the personhood note; 4:30 and 5:18 are the sharpest new pressure points.
- Fullness (πλήρωμα) at 3:19, “filled with all the fullness of God” — the closest single wording-parallel in this letter to the Īśa Upaniṣad’s pūrṇam mantra; the single most acute individual verse-level risk in the package.
- Mystery (μυστήριον), structural reversal vs. रहस्य/गुह्य — five occurrences across four referents; risk is not mere overlap but an inverted transmission-model (public proclamation vs. initiate-restricted secrecy).
- One new humanity / old self–new self, πुरुष-avoidance (2:15; 4:22–24) — successfully avoided by coinage, but any translator drift back toward the “obvious” gloss पुरुषः at any future revision would trigger both the Sāṃkhya-eternality problem and the Puruṣa-sūkta varṇa-origin problem simultaneously.
- Unity (ἑνότης, 4:3,13) — same Advaita neighborhood as #1 but as an ethical/relational claim rather than a personhood claim; must be taught as oneness-among-distinct-persons.
- Incarnation / avatāra (carried forward from baseline, activated at Eph 1:20–23’s exaltation language and implicit throughout Christological sections) — the most textually explicit baseline collision (Gītā 4.7–8), still fully live in this curriculum.
- Works (ἔργα) at 2:9–10, karma-phala — unavoidable vocabulary; risk is not mistranslation of the word but failure to sequence the mandatory note (works excluded as ground, 2:9; affirmed as fruit only, 2:10).
- Armor of God (6:11–17) / kavaca-stotra genre — high visibility, high recognizability collision; a reader could plausibly (mis)hear the whole passage as instructions for a protective mantra-recitation rather than settled doctrinal conviction.
- Predestined (προορίζω) at 1:5,11 — genuine coinage risk: पूर्वनिर्णयः must be kept legible as God’s determination and not drift toward sounding like a Mīmāṃsā scholar’s own argued conclusion (a category-confusion internal to the coinage itself, distinct from an external doctrinal collision).
- Submission (ὑποτάσσω) at 5:21–24 / Manusmṛti household-dependency doctrine — high risk specifically because the household-codes section will be read by an audience for whom Manusmṛti’s asymmetrical household doctrine is a live, authoritative classical text, not a remote curiosity; failure to pair 5:21 and 5:25 in every rendering risks confirming rather than subverting that doctrine.
- Idolatry (εἰδωλολατρία) at 5:5 / मूर्तिपूजा — high risk of unintentionally denouncing the target audience’s own mainstream devotional practice if the wrong gloss is ever substituted at Phase 2 by an unwary reviewer reaching for the “obvious” word.
- Redemption (ἀπολύτρωσις) at 1:7,14 / √muc-family gravitational pull — ongoing risk that a later reviewer, seeking a more “elegant” synonym per the baseline’s warning against near-synonym drift, reaches for विमोचनम् or मुक्तिः without recognizing the root-level forbidden-list violation.
- Fragrant offering and sacrifice (5:2) / Mīmāṃsā yajña-apūrva mechanics — moderate-frequency (single occurrence) but doctrinally load-bearing (atonement); risk of a ritual-technique reading rather than a unique personal act of love.
- Cosmic powers of evil (6:12) / named Purāṇic and directional-guardian classes — risk is lower frequency but high vividness; a translator unfamiliar with the fenced vocabulary might reach for a named class (असुर, राक्षस) for narrative color, reintroducing an entire unwanted mythological cosmology.
- Seal of the Spirit (1:13; 4:30) / tapta-mudrā-dhāraṇa and Tantric mudrā — moderate risk; mainly a concern for illustrated or catechetical Phase 2 material rather than plain text.
5. Summary and Handoff
This gap analysis confirms that Ephesians does not introduce a fundamentally new category of risk beyond what the Romans baseline already establishes (the Advaita ātman/Brahman collision remains the single dominant risk across both curricula), but it substantially intensifies that risk through three new terms — unity (ऐक्यम्), fullness (पूर्णता), and the compound “filled with the Spirit” — that sit directly inside the same crowded neighborhood and must be cross-referenced to one another, not treated as independent entries, at Phase 2 review. It also introduces a genuinely new pattern not present in Romans: deliberate avoidance-by-coinage of the “obvious” gloss (πुरुष) for an entire cluster of doctrines (one new humanity; old self/new self) — the first case in this pipeline where the correct strategy is not fencing a crowded term but refusing to use it at all in favor of a coined neutral alternative. Both patterns — intensified fencing of the ātman/pūrṇam/aikya cluster, and wholesale avoidance of the puruṣa cluster — should be treated as the two governing principles for any future Ephesians-adjacent curriculum (e.g., Colossians, which shares both the πλήρωμα and κεφαλή vocabulary).
All terms, risk tiers, and rejected alternatives in this document are drawn from and must remain consistent with 08_core_glossary.md and the Ephesians-specific bible_term_registry.json; this document adds no new terminology, only the gap/crowding analysis and transliteration ruling required by Phase 1 Step 8.