Linguistic Gap Analysis

Linguistic Gap Analysis: Jude

Curriculum: Jude (single chapter, verses 1–25 — full-book coverage by definition) Destination language: Turkish Core passage: Jude 1:3–23 Prepared per: PRD Phase 1 Step 8 Depends on / must remain consistent with: translation_memory.json (v9 baseline), bible_term_registry.json (baseline + Jude additions), 08_core_glossary.md

0. Scope and Method

Jude is 25 verses long, so “full-book coverage” here means the entire letter, not a subset. Every verse has been checked against the six assigned doctrines below and against the existing eight-book translation memory to identify: (a) doctrine-vocabulary availability and weakness in Turkish, (b) genuine lexical gaps where no adequate Turkish term exists, (c) semantic neighborhoods so crowded with competing Islamic-register, folk-Islamic, and secular options that a fencing decision is required, (d) transliteration-vs-paraphrase calls, and (e) a final risk-ranked ambiguity list for Phase 2 escalation routing.

This document does not re-derive the glossary (08_core_glossary.md) or the term registry — it analyzes why each major decision was necessary in linguistic-gap terms, so Phase 2 translators and reviewers understand the reasoning, not just the resulting rule.

1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

Doctrine	Available Turkish Term(s)	Weaknesses of Available Terms	Recommended Strategy
Contending for the Faith Once Delivered	İman (pistis); mücadele etmek / uğrunda savaşmak (epagōnizesthai); teslim edilmiş/verilmiş (paradotheisē)	(1) “Mücadele etmek” shares acoustic and conceptual space with cihad/mücadele vocabulary used for religious struggle in Turkish Islamic discourse, risking a militant-struggle overtone Jude does not intend (the metaphor is athletic/effort, not martial). (2) “Bir kez teslim edilmiş” (delivered once) is linguistically adequate but doctrinally exposed: Turkish Islamic theology’s naskh (abrogation) framework treats prior revelation as genuine-but-superseded, and a careless one-word rendering of ἅπαξ (“once”) could be heard as “once, at that early, now-superseded stage” rather than “once, and definitively, for all time.”	Render epagōnizesthai as “var gücünüzle uğrunda mücadele etmek,” with mandatory teaching-note disambiguation on first use per lesson: intellectual/doctrinal defense of a received deposit, not physical combat. Render the ἅπαξ clause with the fuller phrase “bir kez ve sonsuza dek teslim edilen” (delivered once and permanently), never a bare “bir kez,” so the finality — not just the singularity — of the historical event is carried by the phrase itself, not left to inference.
Judgment on Ungodly False Teachers	Tanrısızlar / tanrısızlık (asebeis/asebeia); yargı (krisis); günahkâr (hamartōloi); Vay…haline! (ouai)	“Tanrısız” in contemporary secular Turkish usage default-reads as ateist (one who denies God’s existence outright) — a modern, philosophical-atheism connotation absent from Jude’s sense of practical, professing-insider godlessness. This is a false-friend risk in the opposite direction from most of this Language Package’s collisions: here the danger is the term reading as too weak/wrong-category (irreligion) rather than too strong.	Retain tanrısızlar/tanrısızlık (no better alternative exists and the term is textually load-bearing, occurring 6+ times), but require a mandatory first-occurrence teaching gloss per lesson: “kilisenin içinden çıkan, Tanrı’ya inandığını söyleyen ama yaşamıyla O’nu reddedenler” (those from within the church who claim to believe in God but deny Him by their lives). Do not substitute a periphrasis in the base text itself — the terse epithet’s rhetorical force in Jude’s Greek must survive.
Old Testament Warnings as Types (Israel, Angels, Sodom)	halk (laos); iman etmeyenler (mē pisteusantas); melekler (angeloi); sonsuz zincirler (desmois aidiois); sonsuz ateş (pyr aiōnion); kendilerine yasak olan bedenlerin ardına düşmek (sarkos heteras)	(1) Turkish has robust shared angelology vocabulary with Islam (melekler, başmelek, İblis) — a genuine resource, but one that risks importing unstated doctrinal assumptions (e.g., popular Islamic teaching that angels cannot sin/rebel at all, making v.6’s premise seem doctrinally foreign rather than merely unfamiliar). (2) The Sodom “different/strange flesh” phrase (v.7) has no single settled Turkish idiom and is exegetically contested even in English/Greek scholarship — a genuine lexical gap, not just a sensitivity issue.	For angels: retain melekler/başmelek/İblis (shared vocabulary is a real point of contact) but add an explicit teaching note at v.6 stating plainly that Christian doctrine holds some angels did rebel and fall, a claim standard Sunni angelology generally denies — flag as a point of difference, not silently harmonized common ground. For “strange flesh”: use the interpretively cautious “kendilerine yasak olan bedenlerin ardına düşmek” (pursuing bodies/flesh forbidden to them) in the base text, and carry both major scholarly readings (sexual sin generally; a boundary-violation echoing v.6’s angels) in the teaching note rather than resolving the ambiguity in translation.
Mercy and Rescue of the Wavering	Merhamet (eleos); kararsız/kuşku içinde olanlar (diakrinomenous); ateşten kapıp çıkarmak (harpazontes)	Merhamet is a live, shared Islamic-Turkish devotional term (cf. Rahman, Rahim), which is a genuine asset for warmth and comprehension — but it is also embedded in the Islamic merit-and-mercy soteriological framework (mercy operating alongside weighed deeds), the same collision the Romans baseline already flags for rahmet. Because Jude 22-23 is this letter’s pastoral hinge (differentiated mercy toward reachable doubters vs. judgment on hardened false teachers), a shallow rendering risks flattening that distinction into generic, undifferentiated “being nice.”	Retain Merhamet (already TM-established from the Galatians package) but elevate its risk tier specifically for Jude (done: High, up from Galatians’ Medium) precisely because the distinguishing pastoral logic of vv.22-23 depends on it. Teaching material must explicitly separate three groups by name — the hardened unbelievers of v.5, the false teachers of vv.4-19, and the wavering of vv.22-23 — so merhamet is never read as blanket amnesty for the first two groups.
Kept by God and Presented Blameless	korumak/gözetmek (tēreō/phylassō); kendinizi…koruyun (tērēsate imperative); kusursuz (amōmous)	Turkish has no single verb that naturally spans all five occurrences of the τηρέω/φυλάσσω keeping-motif (vv.1, 6, 13, 21, 24) the way the Greek’s repeated root does — korumak and gözetmek are both viable but a translator working verse-by-verse could easily alternate between them (or introduce a third synonym like muhafaza etmek) without noticing the five occurrences are meant to be read as one deliberate structural chain. This is a genuine structural-cohesion gap, not a single-word lexical gap.	Mandate a single fixed root (korumak, with gözetmek permitted only as a stylistic variant within the SAME translation pass, never alternating unmotivated) across all five occurrences, decided once at the document level rather than per-verse. Require Phase 2 QA to check all five occurrences together as a linked set before segment approval (per the escalation note already logged in `bible_term_registry.json`’s `kept_by_god` and `keep_yourselves` entries).
Doxology and God’s Preserving Power	bir tek Tanrımız ve Kurtarıcımız (monō theō sōtēri); Rabbimiz İsa Mesih aracılığıyla; yücelik, büyüklük, kudret ve yetki (doxa, megalōsynē, kratos, exousia)	The doxology’s opening “to the only God” is Turkish’s single strongest available point of natural resonance with tawhid-vocabulary — but that very resonance is a double-edged linguistic resource: if the mediating clause (“through Jesus Christ our Lord”) is dropped, abbreviated, or placed in a subordinate/parenthetical position in translation for stylistic reasons, the verse reads as a plain monotheistic affirmation with no distinctively Christian content, effectively converting v.25 into something a Muslim reader could affirm without remainder. Additionally, κράτος’s traditional Turkish doxological slot (kudret) sits uncomfortably close to the same lexeme the Romans baseline forbids for δύναμις θεοῦ due to its qadar/fatalism associations.	Render the mediating clause as an obligatory, non-optional clause-final unit in the SAME sentence as “the only God,” never split into a separate sentence or footnoted; require native-speaker confirmation (not just theologian sign-off) that “kudret” in this specific four-item doxological list, addressed to a named, personal, saving God with an explicit Christ-mediation clause attached, does not trigger the same fatalism association as its Romans 1:16 usage — the doxological genre and immediate context differ materially from that passage.

2. Missing Vocabulary: Genuine Lexical Gaps

These are cases where Turkish (Christian, Islamic, or secular register) simply lacks a ready-made equivalent, as distinct from §3’s “too many crowded options” problem.

δεσπότης as a distinct-from-κύριος Christological title (v.4). Turkish has no second high-register sovereignty word available once κύριος has already claimed Rab. “Efendi” is available but semantically demoted (human master/employer), a problem already flagged in the Romans baseline for κύριος itself. Gap-filling strategy: compound qualification rather than a single new lexeme — “tek Efendimiz ve Rabbimiz” uses “tek” (only/sole) to restore the exclusivity δεσπότης carries in Greek, and pairs it with the already-established Rab so the divine referent is unmistakable even though “Efendi” alone would be too weak.
ἀσέλγεια (v.4) as a single Turkish noun for unrestrained sexual/moral license specifically as a theological category (not simply a descriptive adjective). Turkish has adjectival and descriptive resources (ahlaksızlık, sınırsız şehvet) but no single settled theological-register noun parallel to, e.g., günah (sin) or ihtiras (passion) that carries the same “grace weaponized into permission” nuance. Gap-filling strategy: accept the descriptive compound and supply the missing theological framing (grace-abuse, not mere immorality) in the surrounding teaching note rather than the lexeme itself.
σπιλάδες / σπίλοι (v.12) — a maritime hazard-image (submerged reef) vs. a stain/blemish image. Turkish has “gizli kayalıklar” for the reef sense, which is adequate, but there is no single Turkish word that (like the Greek’s two textual variants) could plausibly carry both senses at once, so the textual-variant note cannot be smoothed over by a clever dual-sense Turkish word — it must be documented as a textual-critical note instead. Gap-filling strategy: accept “gizli kayalıklar” as the primary rendering (following the initial critical-text preference) and carry the σπίλοι/blemish variant transparently in a textual note, per this pipeline’s established discipline (cf. Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11).
ψυχικοί (v.19) as a technical anthropological category distinguishing “natural/soulish” from “spiritual” personhood. Turkish “benlik düşkünü” or “doğal insan” both work descriptively but there is no single settled Turkish theological term with the same Pauline/Jude technical precision (paralleling 1 Corinthians 2:14’s ψυχικός ἄνθρωπος, not yet addressed in this Language Package). Gap-filling strategy: use a two-part gloss (“benlik düşkünü, doğal insan”) rather than force a single invented neologism, and flag for consistency check when/if 1 Corinthians enters this pipeline in a future curriculum.
θαυμάζοντες πρόσωπα (v.16) — a Hebraic idiom (“admiring faces”) with no direct Turkish idiomatic parallel. Gap-filling strategy: translate the meaning (flattery/partiality for gain) rather than attempt a literal or quasi-literal Turkish idiom that does not exist; confirmed already in the glossary as “çıkarları için başkalarına yağcılık etmek.”

3. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods Requiring Fencing

Unlike §2, these are cases where Turkish has multiple plausible candidate terms, each carrying a different — and doctrinally consequential — set of connotations from competing religious/cultural registers. Each requires an explicit fence (a rule about which term is permitted and which is forbidden) rather than a simple lexical choice.

3.1 δοῦλος-family (v.1) — the servant/slave neighborhood

Candidates: kul (positive Islamic-devotional self-designation, “servant of God”), köle (negative bondage, established by the Galatians package for the OPPOSITE valence of this same Greek root), hizmetkâr (generic servant/employee).

Fence: v.1’s δοῦλος (Jude’s self-designation) is rendered kulu, matching the positive devotional register and the standard Kitabı Mukaddes convention for Paul/James/Jude’s epistolary self-designations — the deliberate exception to the Galatians package’s “never kul” rule, which governs only the negative bondage-vs-freedom antithesis of Galatians 4-5. Reviewers must not treat this as a contradiction; a mandatory cross-reference note in the segment cache prevents an automated consistency-checker from flagging it as a TM violation.

3.2 σάρξ-family (vv.7, 8, 23) — the flesh neighborhood

Candidates: Benlik (established Galatians-package rendering for the ETHICAL sense — self-reliant fallen nature), beden/ten (literal physical body).

Fence: All three Jude occurrences are literal/physical (sexual sin, bodily corruption, a garment stained by contact with sinful flesh) — never Benlik. This is the single most important intra-pipeline disambiguation in this letter, since a translator pattern-matching on “σάρξ = Benlik” from the Galatians/Ephesians muscle memory would silently import an entirely different doctrine (self-reliant fallen nature as an ethical disposition) into a concrete-bodily context, producing nonsense or, worse, a subtly false abstraction where Jude intends something concrete and visceral.

3.3 κύριος vs. κυριότητα vs. δεσπότης (vv.4, 8) — the lordship/authority neighborhood

Candidates: Rab (established, reserved exclusively for the divine title), yetki/egemenlik (abstract dominion/authority), Efendi (demoted human-master sense).

Fence: Rab is reserved exclusively for κύριος as a title (never for the abstract κυριότης). κυριότητα (v.8, the abstract quality of rulership the false teachers reject) must render as yetki/egemenlik, never Rab, or the false teachers will appear to be rejecting Christ’s person directly rather than legitimate authority in the abstract — two different accusations with different doctrinal weight. δεσπότης (v.4) must never collapse into bare Efendi; the “tek” qualifier plus mandatory Rab pairing is the fence (see §1 above and §2 item 1).

3.4 δόξα (singular, God’s own glory — TM-established Critical term Yücelik) vs. δόξας (plural, v.8, created glorious beings/angels)

Candidates: Yücelik (God’s own attribute, Critical-risk in the baseline), yüce varlıklar (created majestic beings).

Fence: v.8’s δόξας must NEVER render as Yücelik or any cognate suggesting God’s own glory is the object of the false teachers’ slander. The correct referent is angelic beings. This is a serious category-error risk: conflating the two would imply the false teachers blaspheme God directly at v.8, when the text’s escalating logic (v.8 angels → v.9 the Devil himself, restrained even by Michael) depends on v.8 being a lesser target than v.9’s target, which is itself less audacious than direct blasphemy of God. Fencing this distinction preserves Jude’s rhetorical escalation.

3.5 ἀσεβεῖς/ἀσέβεια (throughout) — the godlessness neighborhood

Candidates: tanrısız/tanrısızlık (chosen), dinsiz (irreligious, secular-register), kâfir (the Islamic theological-legal category for a non-Muslim/unbeliever — REJECTED).

Fence: Never kâfir. Although kâfir is semantically closer in some respects (a professing-community outsider-designation with theological teeth), it imports the entire Islamic legal-theological category of unbelief-toward-Islam specifically, an entirely different frame than Jude’s charge of practical godlessness from within the professing Christian community. Retain tanrısız/tanrısızlık with the mandatory clarifying gloss noted in §1.

3.6 ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι (v.3) — the contend/struggle neighborhood

Candidates: mücadele etmek (chosen, general struggle/effort), cihad etmek (REJECTED — direct Islamic religious-struggle loanword), savaşmak (fight/war, too martial).

Fence: Never cihad etmek or any transparent cognate; never savaşmak alone without the “uğrunda” (for the sake of/in defense of) framing that keeps the image defensive/athletic rather than offensive/martial. “Var gücünüzle uğrunda mücadele etmek” is the fenced compromise: strong effort language without importing either the specific Islamic loanword or an unqualified war-metaphor.

3.7 μερμηνεία of “kept”/“keeping” (τηρέω/φυλάσσω family) vs. general “muhafaza etmek”

Candidates: korumak/gözetmek (chosen), muhafaza etmek (a viable but Ottoman/bureaucratic-register alternative that would clash with the plain, warm register mandated by the baseline system prompt).

Fence: Reject muhafaza etmek as the primary verb throughout — it is accurate but registers as legal/bureaucratic Turkish rather than the pastoral warmth appropriate to a short, urgent personal letter. Reserve korumak/gözetmek exclusively per §1’s Kept-by-God matrix entry.

4. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decision Log

Item	Decision	Rationale
Ἑνώχ (Enoch, v.14)	Paraphrase to established form, not transliteration of Greek	Use Hanok (established Turkish Bible Genesis-tradition form), not a bare transliteration of the Greek Ἑνώχ or English “Enoch.” Consistency with the Old Testament genealogical record the reader may already know matters more here than fidelity to the Greek spelling.
Κάϊν, Βαλαάμ, Κόρε (Cain, Balaam, Korah, v.11)	Established Turkish Bible (Genesis/Numbers) forms	Kayin, Balam, Korah — matching existing Turkish Old Testament translation convention, not fresh transliterations from the Greek epistle text.
Ἀββᾶ-style retained Aramaic (not present in Jude, contrast case)	N/A — noted for consistency check only	Jude contains no Aramaic transliteration comparable to Abba (Romans 8:15) or the cry of dereliction (Mark 15:34); flagged only to confirm no such case was overlooked in full-book review.
δεσπότην (v.4)	Paraphrase, not transliteration	No Turkish transliteration convention exists for δεσπότης as a title (unlike, e.g., Mesih for Christos); a compound paraphrase (“tek Efendimiz ve Rabbimiz”) is the only viable path — see §2 item 1, §3.3.
ἀμήν (v.25)	Transliteration, per established TM	Amin — reuse Galatians-package convention exactly; no paraphrase needed or wanted for this liturgical formula.
ἀρχάγγελος (v.9)	Paraphrase (compound), not transliteration	Başmelek (chief-angel) rather than a Greek-derived loan; matches existing Turkish Bible convention and avoids introducing an unfamiliar loanword for a concept Turkish already names natively.
σπιλάδες (v.12)	Paraphrase (descriptive image), not transliteration	”Gizli kayalıklar” (hidden reefs) — the Greek nautical term has no transliteration tradition in Turkish; the image itself must be rendered, with the textual variant documented separately (see §2 item 3).
μόνῳ θεῷ σωτῆρι (v.25)	Paraphrase with mandatory structural constraint, not simplified transliteration of σωτήρ alone	Kurtarıcı (already cognate with the TM-established Kurtuluş) plus “bir tek Tanrımız” — a full compound paraphrase is required precisely because a shorter, transliteration-adjacent rendering would lose the doxological weight the passage requires (see §1, Doxology row).

General principle applied throughout: transliteration is reserved for (a) proper names with an already-settled Turkish Bible convention (Enoch→Hanok, Cain→Kayin, etc.) and (b) fixed liturgical formulas already established in TM (Amin). Paraphrase is required wherever Turkish has no native lexical or transliteration tradition for a Greek theological-technical term (δεσπότης, σπιλάδες) or wherever a bare transliteration would fail to carry the term’s doctrinal weight (σωτήρ in a doxological climax).

5. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities

Ranked by combined (a) doctrinal weight, (b) collision potential with Turkish Islamic/folk-religious vocabulary, and (c) likelihood of translator or reviewer error absent explicit guardrails.

The faith once for all delivered (v.3) — naskh/abrogation collision; single highest doctrinal stake in the letter, since Jude’s entire argument depends on the deposit being closed and complete, the opposite of the dominant local theological frame for how revelation-history works.
The 1 Enoch citation (vv.14-15) — canonical/textual-criticism risk directly touching the live tahrif polemic already flagged in the Romans baseline; the single item in this letter most likely to be weaponized by a hostile interlocutor if left unaddressed, since “your own scripture quotes a book you don’t even consider scripture” is a ready-made objection.
σάρξ literal vs. Benlik ethical (vv.7, 8, 23) — highest risk of silent, undetected translator error, precisely because the wrong choice (Benlik) is not obviously wrong on its face; it would produce fluent, doctrinally-plausible-sounding Turkish that is nonetheless a category error.
δόξας plural (created beings) vs. Yücelik singular (God’s own glory) (v.8) — second-highest silent-error risk for the same reason as #3: both renderings are fluent Turkish, and only careful checking against the TM entry prevents a category conflation with serious downstream doctrinal consequences (implying direct blasphemy against God rather than against angelic beings).
δοῦλος self-designation as kulu (v.1) vs. the Galatians package’s köle/kölelik rule — highest risk of automated-consistency-checker false positive, since a naive term-matching system will flag “kulu” as violating the established “never kul” instruction, when in fact this is a deliberately different, correct usage requiring a documented exception.
Only Master and Lord / δεσπότης (v.4) — highest risk of under-translation, i.e., a well-intentioned simplification to a bare “Efendimiz” that quietly loses the exclusivity (tek) and technical-sovereignty (δεσπότης, not merely κύριος) force of the double title.
Kept (τηρέω/φυλάσσω) five-occurrence chain (vv.1, 6, 13, 21, 24) — highest risk of structural drift: no single verse-level choice is wrong, but verse-by-verse translation without a document-level lock risks losing the chain’s cumulative rhetorical effect (God keeps believers ↔ God keeps the rebellious for judgment ↔ believers must also keep themselves ↔ only God is finally able to keep them from stumbling).
Merhamet toward the wavering (vv.22-23) vs. undifferentiated mercy toward the hardened/false teachers — highest risk of pastoral misapplication if the three-group structure (hardened unbelievers v.5 / false teachers vv.4-19 / wavering vv.22-23) is flattened by a generic reading of merhamet as blanket leniency.
Presented blameless / ἄμωμος (v.24) — highest risk of amel-mizan misreading, parallel to the Ephesians package’s good_works caution; a Turkish reader’s default framework for “being found blameless before God” is a deeds-weighed-at-Judgment scale, and the passage’s actual point (God’s power alone accomplishes this) can be silently overwritten by that default framework unless the surrounding teaching material intervenes explicitly.
Only God our Savior…through Jesus Christ our Lord (v.25) — highest risk of doxological over-simplification for style: a translator seeking euphonious liturgical Turkish might be tempted to shorten or subordinate the mediating clause, producing a beautiful but doctrinally hollowed-out doxology a non-Christian reader could recite without remainder.
Tanrısızlar / tanrısızlık (throughout) — moderate-high risk of category mismatch (read as philosophical atheism rather than professing-insider practical godlessness) if the mandatory first-occurrence gloss is omitted by an impatient Phase 2 process.
“Strange flesh” / σαρκὸς ἑτέρας (v.7) — moderate risk, primarily of premature interpretive closure (a translator resolving the genuine exegetical ambiguity in the base text rather than preserving it per the established allegory/israel_of_god discipline).
ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι / mücadele etmek (v.3) — moderate risk of unintended cihad-adjacent resonance if the “uğrunda” framing and mandatory disambiguating teaching note are dropped under editorial pressure to shorten the text.
κράτος as kudret in the closing doxology (v.25) — lower-moderate risk, flagged mainly for native-speaker confirmation rather than theologian review; the doxological genre likely insulates it from the Romans-baseline fatalism concern, but this has not yet been empirically confirmed with target readers.
σπιλάδες/σπίλοι textual variant (v.12) — lowest-risk item on this list; does not touch a Critical doctrine, but is included because silent harmonization to the 2 Peter 2:13 parallel (σπίλοι) would violate this pipeline’s established transparent-textual-note discipline.

6. Full-Book Coverage Confirmation

Jude 1:1–25 constitutes the entire curriculum book. Every verse has been reviewed for this analysis:

vv.1–2 (salutation, greeting-triad): reviewed — see §3.1 (δοῦλος), Doctrine Matrix row “Kept by God” (v.1’s τηρέω occurrence), and Merhamet/Esenlik/Sevgi TM reuse.
v.3 (occasion for writing): reviewed — see Doctrine Matrix row 1, ranked ambiguity #1, #13.
v.4 (the intruding false teachers introduced): reviewed — see §2 item 1, §3.3, ranked ambiguity #6.
vv.5–7 (three OT types: Israel, angels, Sodom): reviewed — see Doctrine Matrix row 3, §2 item 3 (partial — v.7 specifically), ranked ambiguity #12.
vv.8–10 (slander of glorious ones; Michael and the Devil): reviewed — see §3.3, §3.4, ranked ambiguity #4.
v.11 (Cain, Balaam, Korah): reviewed — see §4 transliteration log.
vv.12–13 (love feasts, hidden reefs, wandering stars): reviewed — see §2 item 3, ranked ambiguity #15.
vv.14–15 (Enoch’s prophecy, the 1 Enoch citation): reviewed — see §4, ranked ambiguity #2, the single highest-priority canonical note in this package.
vv.16–19 (grumblers, scoffers, the ψυχικοί diagnosis): reviewed — see §2 item 4.
v.20–21 (build yourselves up; keep yourselves in God’s love): reviewed — see Doctrine Matrix row 5, §3.7, ranked ambiguity #7.
vv.22–23 (differentiated mercy toward the wavering): reviewed — see Doctrine Matrix row 4, ranked ambiguity #8.
v.24 (God able to keep from stumbling; presented blameless): reviewed — see ranked ambiguity #7, #9.
v.25 (closing doxology): reviewed — see Doctrine Matrix row 6, ranked ambiguity #10, #14.

No verse in Jude contributes zero load-bearing vocabulary; unlike longer epistles in this pipeline, there is no “reviewed, no new terms” chapter to note — the entire short letter is dense with doctrine-bearing vocabulary requiring the fencing and gap-analysis decisions documented above.

This analysis extends, and does not contradict, the baseline Romans Language Package and the seven prior extension packages (Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John). All TM-reuse terms cited above must be enforced exactly as recorded in translation_memory.json; all NEW terms proposed above are logged for Phase 2 inclusion in bible_term_registry.json per the citations given.

Library content is free and openly licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 — share and adapt it for non-commercial use, with attribution to tri-bible.ai.