Linguistic Gap Analysis — Ephesians (English/Greek → Ukrainian)
Methodology and Scope
This analysis identifies where Ukrainian lacks vocabulary that Ephesians’ argument requires (missing vocabulary), where Ukrainian has vocabulary but that vocabulary sits in a crowded semantic neighborhood shared with competing senses that must be actively fenced apart in exposition, and where a transliteration vs. paraphrase decision must be made explicitly rather than left to translator instinct. It closes with a ranked list of this letter’s highest-risk ambiguities for Phase 2 routing.
This step extends 08_core_glossary.md and the Ephesians additions to bible_term_registry.json (already produced) rather than duplicating them; where a term is already fully documented there, this analysis references it and adds the gap-diagnostic layer — why the gap exists linguistically and structurally, not merely that a risk exists doctrinally. All renderings here are consistent with, and subordinate to, the baseline translation_memory.json and never propose an alternative to an already-established term.
Full-book coverage confirmation: all six chapters of Ephesians were reviewed for gap analysis. Chapters 1–3 (doxology, prayer, mystery of Jew-Gentile unity) and chapters 4–6 (ecclesial ethics, household codes, spiritual warfare) are treated in full below. No chapter contributes zero new terms; even the most formulaic sections (e.g., 6:21-24’s closing greetings) were reviewed and confirmed to introduce no new gap-relevant vocabulary beyond what chapters 1–6 already surface, and are noted as reviewed, no new terms in the chapter coverage table (Section 5).
Section 1 — Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix
For each of the nine curriculum doctrines: the Ukrainian vocabulary available, its specific weaknesses for carrying this doctrine in this letter, and the recommended translation strategy.
1.1 Salvation by Grace through Faith
| Available Ukrainian terms | Weakness for this doctrine | Recommended strategy |
|---|
| благодать (grace), віра (faith), спасіння/спасенний (salvation), дар (gift), діла (works, unqualified) | Ukrainian has strong, established vocabulary for each individual term, but no single native construction reproduces Paul’s rhetorical architecture in 2:8-9 (grace → through faith → not of yourselves → not of works → so that no one may boast). Ukrainian syntax naturally allows each clause to be translated but tends to flatten the cumulative, climactic rhetorical build into a flat list of parallel clauses, losing the escalating emphasis of the Greek. Additionally, спасенний (a periphrastic-perfect-passive-derived participle) is a comprehension-heavy form for lower-literacy readers; plain спасіння alone loses the “already accomplished, abiding result” force the Greek periphrastic construction (ἐστε σεσωσμένοι) carries. | Retain established TM terms exactly (благодать, віра, спасіння, дар, діла — no deviation). Compensate for the lost rhetorical architecture not lexically but through expository staging: render 2:8-9 as a discrete four-beat sequence in teaching text (сама благодать → через віру → не через діла → щоб ніхто не хвалився), each beat visually/typographically separated, rather than one flowing sentence. For спасенний, gloss explicitly on first occurrence: “ви вже спасенні” (you are already saved, not “will be saved”) to carry the perfect-tense force that the participle alone cannot guarantee a general reader will notice. |
1.2 Election and Predestination in Christ
| Available Ukrainian terms | Weakness for this doctrine | Recommended strategy |
|---|
| обрання/обрати (election), наперед призначив (predestined), задум/намір (purpose), провидіння Боже (providence, TM) | True conceptual gap, not merely lexical: Ukrainian has adequate words for the individual Greek terms, but no established Ukrainian theological category corresponding to Reformed double/single predestination exists in either the Orthodox or Greek Catholic traditions, both of which teach συνέργεια (synergy) between grace and human free response rather than unilateral divine determination before time. This is a doctrinal-conceptual gap that surfaces as a linguistic one: наперед призначив is grammatically transparent Ukrainian but theologically unanchored for most readers, who have no native mental category to receive it into. | Never substitute доля/фатум/карма (forbidden, per baseline). Use наперед призначив exactly as TM specifies, but every occurrence requires accompanying exposition, not lexical substitution, explicitly naming the doctrinal gap: state plainly that this is a different category from доля (impersonal fate) and also distinct from the “cooperation” framework many readers will otherwise default to. Mandatory theologian review, every occurrence, per registry. |
1.3 The Church as the Body of Christ
| Available Ukrainian terms | Weakness for this doctrine | Recommended strategy |
|---|
| церква (church), тіло (body/flesh homograph), голова (head), повнота (fullness) | Structural homograph gap: Ukrainian тіло must carry three distinct referents Greek keeps separate (σῶμα ecclesial, σῶμα neutral-physical, σάρξ ethical) — the single densest such collision in the curriculum series. This is not a missing-word gap but an overcrowded-word gap: one Ukrainian signifier for what Greek treats as (at minimum) two words and (functionally) three concepts. | Do not attempt a lexical fix (no invented compound term is warranted or established); the discipline must be structural: first-occurrence disambiguating gloss in every Ephesians chapter where тіло appears (2, 4, 5, 6), explicitly naming which of the three senses is active. See Section 3 below for full fencing protocol. |
1.4 Unity of Jews and Gentiles in One New Humanity
| Available Ukrainian terms | Weakness for this doctrine | Recommended strategy |
|---|
| погани/народи (gentiles), обрізання/необрізання (circumcision/uncircumcision), юдеї (Jews, TM from Galatians), нова людина (new humanity/new self) | Two distinct gaps: (1) погани’s derogatory semantic drift (documented in baseline) intensifies the risk that 2:11-22’s historical, descriptive ethnic contrast reads as a moral insult; (2) нова людина is used identically for two entirely distinct doctrinal claims (corporate new humanity, 2:15; individual new self, 4:24) — Ukrainian has no morphological device (no available prefix, no case distinction) to keep these apart the way English can with context alone, because Ukrainian lacks a count/mass distinction that would let one phrase read as inherently corporate and the other inherently individual. | Use народи (not погани) throughout 2:11-22’s descriptive ethnic contrast to minimize the derogatory-drift risk; reserve погани only where TM’s existing Romans/Galatians usage requires exact reuse. For нова людина, require an explicit tag on every occurrence — (корпоративно: усі разом) vs. (особисто: кожен вірянин) — since no lexical fix exists. |
1.5 The Mystery of Christ Revealed
| Available Ukrainian terms | Weakness for this doctrine | Recommended strategy |
|---|
| таємниця/тайна (mystery, register-split), Божий задум/устрій спасіння (administration of grace) | Crowded neighborhood, not a missing-word gap: таємниця sits immediately adjacent to a large, currently thriving Ukrainian vocabulary of esoteric/occult “hidden secret” concepts (езотерика, окультні таємниці, конспірологічні таємниці) actively circulating in contemporary media and among the same younger/urban/diaspora-connected readers already flagged for New Age drift risk in the baseline (аватар caution). μυστήριον’s Pauline sense — a truth once hidden, now publicly disclosed — is the near-opposite semantic vector from the neighborhood’s dominant “still-secret, exclusive-knowledge” connotation. | Retain register split (таємниця/exposition, тайна/Scripture citation) exactly as already proposed. Mandatory explicit fencing statement on first occurrence in every chapter it recurs (1, 3, 5, 6): “не прихована таємниця, а вже відкрита” (not a hidden secret, but one now revealed) — the fence must run in the opposite direction from most Critical-risk terms in this Language Package (which fence against flattening/genericizing); here the fence is against an entirely wrong directional connotation (still-hidden vs. now-revealed). |
1.6 Spiritual Warfare and the Armor of God
| Available Ukrainian terms | Weakness for this doctrine | Recommended strategy |
|---|
| боротьба (struggle), влада (authority), повна Божа зброя (armor of God), диявол (devil) | Not a missing-vocabulary gap at all — the opposite problem: Ukrainian’s military/combat/authority vocabulary is unusually rich, vivid, and immediately available to a wartime readership, but this abundance itself is the risk. Every available term (боротьба, влада, зброя) is currently saturated with literal, contemporary, non-metaphorical referents (actual war, actual government authority, actual weapons) to a degree unmatched in any other language package produced for this curriculum series. | No lexical substitution solves this; the text’s own corrective (6:12, “не проти тіла й крові”) must be foregrounded as the primary fencing device, repeated at every reasonable point in 6:10-20 exposition rather than assumed to be absorbed from a single reading. This is the clearest case in the letter where the fence is rhetorical/expository, not lexical. |
1.7 Household Codes and Christ-Centered Relationships
| Available Ukrainian terms | Weakness for this doctrine | Recommended strategy |
|---|
| підкорятися/коритися (submit), голова (head), раб/пан (slave/master) | Genuine sociolinguistic gap: no contemporary Ukrainian register of підкорятися is neutral — the term carries either (a) a submissive-domestic-relations connotation shaped by contemporary gender-role debate, sharpened by wartime social change in women’s public/economic/combat roles, or (b) a bureaucratic/military chain-of-command connotation (підкорятися наказу, “to obey an order”) that imports an entirely wrong register into a household context. Ukrainian simply has no dedicated register for “voluntary, mutual, Christ-modeled self-giving” distinct from both ordinary domestic-hierarchy language and command-obedience language. | Do not seek a new coined term (risk of appearing evasive or theologically suspicious to reviewers). Use підкорятися/коритися per TM, but mandate that 5:21 (mutual submission) is translated and taught before, and as the controlling frame for, 5:22-33 in every lesson sequence — a structural/pedagogical fence rather than a lexical one, since no lexical fence is available. |
1.8 Gifts for Building Up the Church
| Available Ukrainian terms | Weakness for this doctrine | Recommended strategy |
|---|
| духовні дари (general doctrine, TM), обдарування/дар(и) (ministry gifts), пастир/учитель (offices) | Terminological collision within the letter itself: Ephesians uses at least three distinct Greek terms (δῶρον 2:8, δωρεά/δόμα 4:7-8/11, χάρισμα implied by the broader doctrine) that could all be rendered “gift” in English and largely converge on дар/дари in Ukrainian, risking readers conflating “the gift of salvation” with “gifts for ministry” as though Ephesians taught that ministry ability is itself the mechanism of salvation. | Reserve дар (singular, unqualified) strictly for 2:8’s soteriological sense; use обдарування or дари (plural, qualified with “служіння”/“для Церкви”) for 4:7-11’s ministry sense, and require an explicit one-time cross-reference note the first time both senses appear in the same lesson. |
1.9 Walking in Newness of Life
| Available Ukrainian terms | Weakness for this doctrine | Recommended strategy |
|---|
| ходити (walk), нова людина/стара людина (new/old self), оновити/обновити (renewed) | Motif-consistency gap rather than a lexical gap: ходити itself is unproblematic, but Ukrainian offers several near-synonyms (жити, поводитися, чинити) that a translator working segment-by-segment, without cross-file awareness, could easily and naturally substitute for variety — precisely the failure mode that would destroy Paul’s deliberate six-fold structural “walk” motif (2:2, 2:10, 4:1, 4:17, 5:2, 5:8, 5:15) and its 2:2/2:10 inclusio. | This is a workflow/consistency risk, not a lexical one: mandate a single, locked rendering (ходити, no synonym substitution) enforced via translation-memory cross-check at Phase 2 Step 16/17, flagged explicitly as a consistency rule (see Section 4 of 12_ai_translation_requirements.md update recommendation). |
Section 2 — Missing Vocabulary: True Lexical Gaps
These are cases where Ukrainian has no existing single-word or established phrase for the Greek concept, requiring either a coined compound, a paraphrase, or an explicit borrowed/adapted term. Distinguished in Section 3 from crowded-neighborhood cases, where a Ukrainian word does exist but competes with unwanted senses.
| Concept | Greek | Gap type | Proposed resolution |
|---|
| οἰκονομία (τῆς χάριτος) — the “stewardship/administration” of grace as a coherent single concept | οἰκονομία | No single settled Ukrainian equivalent; the household-management root sense (οἶκος + νόμος) that unifies the Greek metaphor has no Ukrainian cognate carrying the same “ordered management of a household/plan” force | Multi-option phrase already proposed in the glossary (Божий задум / устрій спасіння / Богом дане служіння благодаті) — genuinely a paraphrase-family, not a single term; must be explicitly defined on first use rather than treated as self-evident vocabulary |
| παιδαγωγός-type “guardian until maturity” images recur structurally in Ephesians’ inheritance language (1:14 ἀρραβών as down-payment guaranteeing a future full inheritance) | ἀρραβών | Ukrainian застава exists but carries unwanted loan-collateral/pawn-shop commercial connotation; no warm, relational equivalent exists natively | запорука (already selected) is the best available approximation but is itself a soft paraphrase rather than an exact equivalent; requires brief first-occurrence explanation (“як завдаток, що гарантує повне спадкове право”) |
| συγκληρονόμος / σύσσωμος / συμμέτοχος — three rare, deliberately overlapping Pauline compound coinages naming the same equality from three angles | (rare NT-only compounds) | No native Ukrainian compounding pattern reproduces triple near-synonymous coinage naturally; Ukrainian со-/спів- prefixing can approximate but risks sounding artificial if pushed to three parallel neologisms in one verse | Retain спів- compounds (співспадкоємець / співчлен тіла / співучасник) as already proposed, but flag in exposition that Paul is intentionally piling up near-synonyms for emphasis — the repetition itself, not just each word’s individual sense, carries the rhetorical point, and Ukrainian readers should be told this explicitly since the triple compound will otherwise read as unusual or redundant Ukrainian style |
| ἀνακεφαλαιόω — “to head up/sum up under one κεφαλή” | ἀνακεφαλαιόω | Ukrainian об’єднати (unite) captures the result but entirely loses the κεφαλή (head) root pun that connects 1:10 forward to the letter’s headship theology (4:15, 5:23) | No single-word fix exists; must supply an explicit exposition note linking 1:10’s об’єднати to голова (head) later in the letter, since the wordplay is invisible in translation without comment |
| μυστήριον μέγα (5:32) as a typological (not sacramental) category | μυστήριον μέγα | Ukrainian тайна/таємниця is available lexically, but no established Ukrainian phrase distinguishes “typological pointer” from “sacrament” the way this curriculum’s Protestant frame requires against the Orthodox/Greek Catholic sacramental Таїнства (Mysteries/Sacraments) tradition, where marriage (шлюb) is literally one of the seven Таїнства | Genuine conceptual gap requiring paraphrase-as-explanation rather than a term: exposition must state explicitly “тут ідеться про прообраз (типологію), а не про таїнство, що дає спасенну благодать” — this sentence itself is the resolution, since no shorter phrase carries the distinction |
| ἐνέργεια/ἐνεργέω rendered as verb-only, never nominalized | ἐνέργεια | Not missing vocabulary per se (енергія exists and is the obvious cognate) but the correct Ukrainian rendering requires deliberately avoiding the most natural-seeming word; the “gap” is the absence of a neutral nominal alternative to енергія that does not sound stilted | діяти / бути дійовим (verb-only strategy already adopted) is a genuine workaround-paraphrase, not a discovered equivalent noun; translators must resist the pull toward a nominal rendering throughout 2:2 and 3:20 |
Section 3 — Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods Requiring Active Fencing
Distinguished from Section 2: here Ukrainian vocabulary is not missing but sits too close to unwanted neighboring senses, requiring an active textual “fence” (explicit disambiguation, capitalization convention, or register discipline) to keep the intended sense isolated.
| Ukrainian term | Crowded neighbors | Doctrinal stakes | Fencing protocol |
|---|
| тіло | σῶμα (ecclesial Body of Christ) / σῶμα (neutral physical body) / σάρξ (ethical “flesh”) | Highest-density Critical risk in the curriculum series (per registry). Collapsing distinctions either condemns the physical body (against both majority traditions’ positive body-theology) or dissolves Paul’s ecclesiology into generic biology. | Mandatory first-occurrence gloss in each of chapters 2, 4, 5, 6 independently (not merely once in the whole letter) — e.g., “тіло (тут: Церква, тіло Христове)” vs. “тіло (тут: людська природа, що протистоїть Духові)”. Never rely on a single letter-wide footnote; each chapter’s occurrence must be re-fenced, since readers may encounter chapters out of sequence in a study curriculum format. |
| Дух / дух | Святий Дух (Holy Spirit, capitalized, bare πνεῦμα occurrences at 2:18, 2:22, 3:16, 4:3-4, 5:18, 6:18) vs. secular дух (“бойовий дух” = wartime fighting morale; “дух часу” = zeitgeist) vs. generic “spirit/mood” | Critical; a bare lowercase дух in a wartime-context document risks being read through the dominant current secular idiom, unlike in peacetime contexts where “дух” is comparatively unloaded. | Absolute rule: every bare πνεῦμα occurrence renders as capitalized Дух with first-occurrence gloss “(Святий Дух)” in each chapter section; never permit lowercase дух to stand for the Holy Spirit under any circumstance, including poetic or elevated-register exposition. |
| слава | God’s own glory (1:6,12,14,17,18; 3:13,16,21) vs. “Слава Україні” (patriotic greeting, especially salient since 2014/2022) | High; Ephesians 1’s doxology structure repeats слава with a frequency unmatched elsewhere in the curriculum series, multiplying the collision surface. | No lexical substitute exists or is warranted; fence via consistent syntactic pairing — always пара “слава Божа” / “Його слава” (never bare слава without an explicit divine referent noun or pronoun in the same clause), so the patriotic idiom’s bare, referent-free usage pattern cannot be mistaken for the doctrinal one. |
| влада | Spiritual/cosmic authority (2:2; 6:12) vs. current Ukrainian civic-political “authority” (government, martial-law powers, wartime emergency authority) | High; unlike слава, влада has no available syntactic pairing fix, since “spiritual authority” and “civic authority” both naturally take the same grammatical constructions. | Requires an explicit adjectival fence every occurrence: “духовна влада” / “космічна влада темряви,” never bare влада alone in these two passages, plus an explicit exposition sentence disclaiming any earthly-political referent. |
| боротьба | Spiritual combat (6:12) vs. “боротьба за незалежність” (independence struggle) and current war-effort discourse | Critical; the single highest-charge word choice in the armor-of-God unit. | Foreground the text’s own qualifier (“не проти тіла й крові”) immediately adjacent to every use of боротьба in 6:10-20 exposition; never let боротьба stand for more than one clause without the qualifier re-stated nearby. |
| ворожість | Christ’s abolition of Jew-Gentile/God-humanity hostility (2:14,16) vs. root-sharing with ворог (wartime “enemy”) | Critical; shares the baseline’s мир caution pattern but is arguably sharper since ворожість’s root (ворог) is even more transparent than мир’s homograph risk. | Explicit disclaiming sentence required at first occurrence: this is not a metaphor for, or commentary on, reconciliation with a literal wartime aggressor; the passage’s pastoral power (reconciliation across the deepest hostility) may be felt, but the referent (Christ’s cross, the Jew-Gentile and God-humanity divide) must be kept primary and named. |
| освячення (inherited baseline Critical term, recurs structurally via ἁγιασμός-adjacent sanctification themes in ch.4-5) | Spirit’s ongoing moral transformation vs. свячення паски (Easter basket blessing, folk-devotional) | Critical (inherited). Ephesians 4-5’s extended ethical section is the letter’s largest single deployment of this doctrine outside Romans. | No new fencing needed beyond the baseline’s already-established protocol; confirmed still fully applicable and re-flagged here for Ephesians’ extended ethical material. |
| нова людина | Corporate “new humanity” (2:15) vs. individual “new self” (4:24) | Critical; see Section 1.4 and 2. | Mandatory tag on every occurrence distinguishing corporate/individual referent (see 1.4 above); this entry is repeated here because it is simultaneously a missing-grammatical-device gap (Section 2 logic) and a crowded-neighborhood risk (identical surface form, two doctrines). |
| пастир | Ephesians 4:11 ministry-gift sense vs. denominationally-marked “пастор” (Protestant clergy title) vs. Orthodox/Greek Catholic “панотець”/“владика” pastoral-episcopal associations | High; risks an unintended confessional signal on a jurisdiction-neutral term. | Explicit framing note at first occurrence: present as a function (shepherding care), not an endorsement of any tradition’s specific clergy title, ordination structure, or church governance model. |
| таємниця/тайна | Now-revealed Pauline mystery vs. contemporary esoteric/occult “still-hidden secret” media culture | Critical; opposite-direction fence from most entries in this table (see Section 1.5). | “не прихована, а вже відкрита” fencing phrase at every recurrence (chapters 1, 3, 5, 6). |
| раб | Ancient Greco-Roman household slave institution (6:5-9) vs. Ukrainian кріпацтво (serfdom) and Soviet forced-labor historical memory | High; risks either flattening the passage into commentary on Ukraine’s own oppression history or, conversely, being heard as endorsing that later, distinct institution. | Explicit historical-distancing note at first occurrence in ch. 6: this addresses the ancient institution Paul found already in place, not кріпацтво or Soviet forced labor, and 6:9’s shared-heavenly-Master point must be foregrounded as the passage’s real target. |
Section 4 — Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decision Log
Every case in Ephesians where a transliteration-vs-paraphrase choice was live, with the decision and rationale.
| Term | Decision | Rationale |
|---|
| μυστήριον | Paraphrase (таємниця/тайна), not transliteration | A transliterated “містеріон” would import unwanted Gnostic/esoteric-sounding foreignness precisely where the doctrine’s point is that this truth is now openly, plainly proclaimed — transliteration would work against the doctrine rather than for it. |
| πλήρωμα | Paraphrase (повнота), not transliteration (“плерома”) | “Плерома” is the actual historical Gnostic technical term in the History of Religions; using it (even as a gloss) risks implying doctrinal proximity to the very system Paul may be countering. Full avoidance of the transliterated form is recommended, unlike μυστήριον where a register-split paraphrase is used but the underlying concept is not itself named after a rival system. |
| ἀρραβών | Paraphrase (запорука), not transliteration or literal calque (застава) | See Section 2; transliteration is not applicable to this common noun, and the literal Ukrainian financial-collateral term is explicitly rejected in favor of a warmer relational paraphrase. |
| Ἀββά (cf. Galatians/Romans precedent) | Transliteration retained (Авва, Отче) — inherited, not newly decided | Not a live decision in Ephesians itself (the phrase does not recur independently), but confirmed here that no Ephesians passage requires revisiting this established transliteration. |
| ἐνέργεια | Neither transliteration nor noun-paraphrase; verb-only rendering (діяти/бути дійовим) | A transliterated “енергія” is the single most dangerous option available (direct collision with Orthodox Palamite technical vocabulary); a Ukrainian nominal paraphrase risks the same collision by sounding like a deliberate technical claim. The verb-only strategy sidesteps the noun-form collision entirely. |
| ὑποτάσσω | Paraphrase (підкорятися/коритися), no transliteration considered | Not a transliteration candidate; included here to confirm no alternative coined term was preferred over the existing established Ukrainian verb pair despite its crowded-neighborhood risk (Section 3) — coining a new term was rejected as more likely to appear evasive than clarifying. |
| πανοπλία | Paraphrase (повна Божа зброя / повний обладунок Божий), no transliteration | ”Панопліє” is not attested in any Ukrainian Bible tradition and would read as an opaque neologism; the vivid native military-vocabulary paraphrase is both doctrinally sufficient and pastorally resonant, per Section 1.6. |
| στοιχεῖα-adjacent terms (not present in Ephesians itself, cross-checked from Galatians TM) | N/A — confirmed not recurring in Ephesians | Checked to ensure no Ephesians passage requires re-opening the Galatians “стихії світу” transliteration-vs-paraphrase decision; none does. |
General principle applied: transliteration is reserved in this Language Package for (a) proper names, (b) already-established liturgical set-phrases inherited from the Ohienko tradition (амінь, алілуя, Авва), and (c) cases where a Ukrainian paraphrase would itself be more misleading than a foreign-sounding loanword. Ephesians surfaces no new case meeting criterion (c); every new-term decision in this letter favors paraphrase over transliteration, which is itself a notable finding of this gap analysis — Ephesians’ abstract, doctrinally dense vocabulary (mystery, fullness, administration of grace) is better served by explanatory Ukrainian phrasing than by coining new loanwords, unlike, for example, apostle or Messiah in the Romans baseline, where established transliteration was already the right call generations before this project.
Section 5 — Chapter-by-Chapter Coverage Confirmation
| Chapter | New gap-relevant vocabulary | Status |
|---|
| 1 | обрання, наперед призначив, задум/намір, усиновлення (extended), спадщина, запечатати, запорука, таємниця, об’єднати, повнота, слава (density), небесні місця | Reviewed — major gap density |
| 2 | тіло (homograph launch point), мертвий, пожадливість, гнів, природа, милосердя, оживити/воскресив/посадив разом, дар, діла, хвалитися, творіння, добрі діла, наперед приготував, ходити, князь, влада, діяти/бути дійовим, обрізання/необрізання, чужі/приходьки, ворожість, розділяюча стіна, примирити, доступ, співгромадянин, нова людина (corporate), храм, житло/оселя, наріжний камінь | Reviewed — highest gap density in the letter (core passage chapter) |
| 3 | таємниця (recurrence), Божий задум/устрій спасіння, об’єднати (echo), співспадкоємець/співчлен тіла/співучасник, повнота (recurrence), діяти/бути дійовим (recurrence), небесні місця (recurrence) | Reviewed — mystery/unity doctrine concentration |
| 4 | покликання, єдність Духа/зв’язок миру, обдарування/дар(и), апостол/пророк/євангелист/пастир/учитель, приготування/спорядження, збудування/зростання, повнота (recurrence), тіло (ecclesial, recurrence), засмучувати Святого Духа, диявол, стара людина/нова людина (individual), оновити/обновити, прощати | Reviewed — gifts/ecclesial-ethics concentration |
| 5 | тіло (recurrence, multiple senses), голова (recurrence), любов (distinct sense), плід світла, наповнюватися Духом, велика тайна/таємниця, підкорятися/коритися, Спаситель, подобитель/наслідувач, приношення і жертва, розпуста/нечистота/зажерливість, діти світла | Reviewed — household-code and mystery-of-marriage concentration |
| 6 | слухатися/шанувати, раб/пан/слуга/господар, показне служіння, влада (recurrence), боротьба, начала/власті/володарі темряви/духи злоби, армор compound phrases (six), слово Боже, молитва/благання, посол у кайданах | Reviewed — spiritual warfare concentration, highest register-risk chapter after ch.2 |
| 6:21-24 (closing greeting) | — | Reviewed, no new terms — standard epistolary closing formula, вірний служитель (faithful servant) and standard благодать/мир closing greeting reuse TM exactly with no new gap-relevant vocabulary |
Section 6 — Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities
Ranked by combined severity of (a) doctrinal stakes, (b) collision with a live/current Ukrainian cultural, political, or wartime referent, and (c) absence of any purely lexical fix (i.e., requiring sustained expository discipline rather than a one-time translation choice).
- τιεῖ / тіло — σῶμα (ecclesial) vs. σῶμα (physical) vs. σάρξ (ethical) (2, 4, 5, 6) — the single densest homograph collision in the curriculum series; no lexical fix, mandatory per-chapter re-fencing.
- πάλη / боротьба, “not against flesh and blood” (6:12) — maximal contemporary-wartime charge on a term describing the letter’s central spiritual-warfare doctrine; Critical, mandatory theologian review of the entire 6:10-20 unit.
- ἐνέργεια/ἐνεργέω / діяти, never “енергія” (2:2; 3:20) — direct technical collision with living Orthodox Palamite seminary-level theology shared by OCU and UOC; single highest-stakes individual lexical choice in the letter.
- προορίζω / наперед призначив (predestination) (1:5, 1:11) — sharpest predestination language in the curriculum series with zero developed parallel in two of Ukraine’s three living traditions; requires sustained doctrinal scaffolding, not translation alone.
- ἔχθρα / ворожість (2:14, 2:16) — root-shares with ворог (enemy) in a nation at war; risks either an unintended political reading or, if over-corrected, losing the passage’s own considerable pastoral power.
- ὑποτάσσω / підкорятися (5:21-6:9) — no neutral register available in contemporary Ukrainian; compounded by rapid wartime change in women’s public/economic/combat roles making a naive reading land as tone-deaf.
- καινὸς/νέος ἄνθρωπος / нова людина (corporate, 2:15) vs. (individual, 4:24) — identical surface form for two distinct doctrines; Ukrainian has no morphological device to keep them apart without explicit tagging.
- μυστήριον / таємниця (1, 3, 5, 6) — opposite-direction fencing requirement (against under-disclosure, not over-familiarity) versus most other Critical terms in this Language Package; risk of collision with thriving contemporary esoteric/occult vocabulary.
- πνεῦμα (bare) / Дух (2:18, 2:22, 3:16, 4:3-4, 5:18, 6:18) — highest concentration of bare-pneuma occurrences yet encountered in the curriculum series (exceeding even Galatians 5:16-25 in total count across the letter, though less densely clustered); wartime “бойовий дух” idiom risk fully live throughout.
- ἐξουσία / влада (2:2; 6:12) — acutely live current-events word (government/martial-law authority) with no available syntactic-pairing fence (unlike слава), requiring adjectival qualification at every occurrence.
- δῶρον / δωρεά / δόμα — дар vs. обдарування (2:8 vs. 4:7-11) — internal-letter terminological collision risking conflation of two named curriculum doctrines (Salvation by Grace; Gifts for Building Up the Church).
- ἀποκαταλλάσσω / примирити vs. мир (2:16) — decisive, cross-accomplished reconciliation risks being heard through мир’s live ceasefire/political-peace resonance already flagged Critical in the baseline.
- δοῦλος/κύριος (household) / раб/пан (6:5-9) — historical-memory collision with кріпацтво and Soviet forced labor; requires explicit historical-distancing note, not lexical substitution.
- μυστήριον μέγα / велика тайна (marriage, 5:32) — risk of conflation with the Orthodox/Greek Catholic sacramental Таїнство (Mystery/Sacrament) of marriage; genuine cross-tradition doctrinal collision requiring explicit typological-vs-sacramental disambiguation.
- κεφαλή / голова (dual application, ch.1/4 vs. ch.5) — risk that the self-sacrificial headship model (5:25) is detached from its ecclesial anchor (Christ’s headship over the church, ch.1/4), producing a bare-authority reading in either direction.
Cross-References
- Full term-by-term detail:
analysis/08_core_glossary.md and assets/bible_term_registry.json (Ephesians additions).
- Doctrine-level risk routing:
assets/doctrine_risk_registry.json (baseline; Ephesians-specific doctrine entries pending Phase 1 Step 9 registry update, to be generated from this analysis).
- All translation-memory-locked renderings cited above are reused exactly from
assets/translation_memory.json and its Ephesians extensions; no rendering proposed in this document contradicts an established term.
- This analysis feeds directly into Phase 1 Step 9 (doctrine risk registry update) and Phase 2 Step 12 (AI translation requirements update) for the Ephesians package.
This document must be loaded alongside 08_core_glossary.md and the baseline enforcement databases for all Phase 2 Ephesians segment translation planning.