Linguistic Gap Analysis — Jude (Ukrainian)

Scope and Method

This analysis covers the entire book of Jude (vv. 1–25), a single unbroken chapter, in full per the PRD Phase 1 full-book-coverage mandate. Jude 1:3–23 is the curriculum’s core passage and theological anchor, but every verse (1–25) has been checked for load-bearing vocabulary. Verses contributing no new terms or doctrines beyond what is already fixed in the baseline Romans/Galatians Language Package are explicitly marked “reviewed, no new gap” below rather than silently omitted.

This document extends, and does not contradict, the baseline translation_memory.json and bible_term_registry.json. It builds directly on analysis/08_core_glossary.md and the Jude-specific assets/bible_term_registry.json entries already produced, reframing that material specifically as a gap analysis: where Ukrainian lacks a clean equivalent, where existing Ukrainian religious vocabulary is already “crowded” by competing senses that must be fenced apart, where transliteration is preferable to paraphrase (or vice versa), and which of this short letter’s ambiguities carry the highest translation risk.

---

1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

For each of the six curriculum doctrines: the available Ukrainian term(s), the specific weakness(es) of that vocabulary for conveying Jude’s sense, and the recommended mitigation strategy for Phase 2.

1.1 Contending for the Faith Once Delivered (Jude 1:3, 1:17, 1:20)

Available Ukrainian terms	Weakness	Recommended strategy
віра (faith)	Ordinary Ukrainian usage already defaults to confessional/institutional identity (baseline caution); Jude additionally requires a second, non-overlapping sense — “the faith” as a fixed doctrinal deposit (fides quae), not personal trust (fides qua). Ukrainian has no morphological way to mark this sense-shift on the same word.	Do not introduce a new noun. Retain віра but require an explicit teaching gloss at every occurrence of “the faith” in Jude 1:3 and 1:20 (“this is the body of apostolic teaching entrusted to believers, not personal trust as such”). Mandatory theologian review.
передати / переданий (to hand down) vs. Передання (Holy Tradition, capitalized proper noun in Orthodox/Greek Catholic usage)	παραδίδωμι shares its root with Передання, the term for the living, accretive body of councils, patristic writings, and liturgical practice that two of Ukraine’s three living traditions hold as jointly authoritative with Scripture. Jude’s ἅπαξ (“once for all”) names a closed, non-repeatable deposit — the opposite theological shape from an ongoing tradition category.	Follow Ohienko’s own precedent of avoiding a Передання-cognate verb in the Scripture citation itself: “раз дана” for citation register, “одноразово передана” for exposition. The tension with Передання must be named explicitly in teaching text — never left implicit, since silence here would read as an unstated endorsement of one tradition’s tradition-theology over Jude’s own emphasis on closure.
боротися (contend, struggle)	Ukraine’s ordinary word for armed and figurative struggle alike, with acute lived 2022-onward wartime resonance (“боротьба за Україну”). Genuine pastoral asset but risks collapsing Jude’s doctrinal-defense argument into either (a) a metaphor for the literal war or (b) an abstraction stripped of its real cost.	Retain боротися (no better alternative exists) but require explicit framing: this is a real, costly doctrinal struggle, analogous to but not identical with military struggle. Parallel the baseline’s existing свобода/воля discipline from Galatians 5.

1.2 Judgment on Ungodly False Teachers (Jude 1:4, 1:6, 1:8-16, 1:18-19)

Available Ukrainian terms	Weakness	Recommended strategy
безбожний / безбожність (ungodly)	Names active irreverence/rebellion against God’s authority as a fundamental orientation, not an isolated act — this distinction is easy to lose in casual reading, where безбожний can default to a generic insult (“godless person”) rather than a diagnostic theological category. Occurs 6x in 25 verses, an unusually dense concentration.	Distinguish explicitly from гріх (sin, baseline High) on first occurrence: гріх names transgression; безбожність names the settled stance of rebellion that produces it. Must be taught as a category that can arise within the church (false teachers), not reserved for obviously monstrous outsiders — the opposite drift-risk from the baseline’s wartime “гріх = only enemy atrocity” caution.
Владика (Master/Sovereign, δεσπότης)	No lexical weakness in Владика itself — the real gap is the forbidden near-cognate деспот, which in modern Ukrainian means exclusively “tyrant/dictator,” an inversion of Christ’s benevolent absolute lordship.	Владика only, never деспот. Exploit the term’s existing dignity as a form of address for Orthodox/Greek Catholic bishops (Владико!) as a genuine asset. The unresolved exegetical question (does δεσπότης = Christ, or the Father, distinct from the following κύριος?) requires mandatory theologian review and explicit exposition, not silent resolution.
осуд (κρίμα, verdict) / суд (κρίσις, act of judging)	Ukrainian has fewer lexical slots than Greek to mark the verdict/process distinction; risk of the translator unconsciously flattening both into суд throughout, losing Jude’s structured judgment vocabulary.	Enforce осуд for κρίμα (1:4) and суд for κρίσις (1:6, 1:9, 1:15) with zero substitution across the letter — a consistency rule, not a stylistic choice.
влада (κυριότης, 1:8; also ἐξουσία, 1:25)	See §2 below — this is the letter’s single largest crowded-neighborhood problem.	Explicit dual-flag exposition at both occurrences (see ranked risks, §4).
душевні / тілесні (ψυχικός, 1:19)	Ohienko’s тілесні compounds the already-Critical σάρξ/σῶμα (тіло) homograph risk by funneling a third, unrelated Greek root (ψυχή, “soul,” not σάρξ) into the same тіло-family vocabulary.	Prefer душевні (from душа) or a plain gloss (“natural, without the Spirit”) over тілесні; if Ohienko’s тілесні must be cited for register-matching reasons, flag explicitly as a distinct root from the σάρξ/σῶμα cluster.
не мають Духа (πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες, 1:19)	Bare, negated πνεῦμα risks being heard as “не мають духу” (lowercase) = “have lost heart/morale,” an idiom of acute, active currency in wartime Ukrainian (бойовий дух).	Mandatory capitalization (Дух) and explicit first-occurrence gloss as the Holy Spirit’s absence in the unregenerate, every single occurrence, no exceptions — inherits and sharpens the baseline’s existing Critical rule from Galatians 5:16-25.

1.3 Old Testament Warnings as Types — Israel, Angels, Sodom (Jude 1:5-7, 1:11)

Available Ukrainian terms	Weakness	Recommended strategy
Ізраїль (Israel, baseline term)	Reused without new lexical weakness, but the typological warning (unbelieving Israel destroyed in the wilderness, 1:5) sits adjacent to the baseline’s already-flagged historical antisemitic-violence sensitivity (Babyn Yar etc., Unity of Jews and Gentiles doctrine).	No lexical change needed; exposition should keep the warning-type frame historically anchored (a specific wilderness-generation judgment) rather than any generalized statement about the Jewish people, exactly as the baseline requires for Romans 9-11.
ангел (angel, 1:6)	No lexical gap, but Second Temple background (the “sons of God” of Genesis 6, echoed by 1 Enoch, which Jude quotes directly at 1:14-15) is unfamiliar to readers whose Bible exposure is lectionary excerpts rather than continuous OT/intertestamental narrative.	Supply brief background note; do not assume readers already know the fallen-angels tradition this warning-type presupposes.
Содом і Гоморра (Sodom and Gomorrah, 1:7)	Zero lexical weakness (fixed Ohienko transliteration) but acute political live-wire risk: “Sodom” is an active rhetorical touchstone in current Ukrainian public debate over sexuality, “traditional values,” and EU/Western cultural alignment.	Present strictly within its own canonical frame — one of three parallel OT warning-types (Israel/angels/Sodom), never leveraged toward either side of the contemporary Ukrainian culture-war debate. Mandatory theologian review, every occurrence.
інше тіло / чуже тіло (σαρκὸς ἑτέρας, “strange flesh,” 1:7)	Genuine scholarly interpretive dispute (same-sex activity vs. human pursuit of union with non-human/angelic beings, echoing 1:6) compounded by the same political live-wire risk as Sodom above, plus the standing тіло/σάρξ-σῶμα homograph caution.	Footnote both interpretive options explicitly rather than silently resolving; do not let translation choice alone settle an exegetical debate. Mandatory theologian review.
дорога Каїнова / помилка Валаамова / бунт Кореїв (Cain/Balaam/Korah, 1:11)	Three compressed OT allusions (Genesis 4; Numbers 16, 22-24, 31:16) assumed familiar by the source text but requiring supplied narrative background for most readers, parallel to the baseline’s existing Davidic/Abrahamic covenant background gap.	Supply concise narrative glosses for each of the three figures; do not assume recognition.

1.4 Mercy and Rescue of the Wavering (Jude 1:2, 1:21-23)

Available Ukrainian terms	Weakness	Recommended strategy
милість (mercy, ἔλεος)	No prior fixed rendering in the baseline; risk is conflation with благодать (grace). The two overlap in ordinary religious usage but are not synonyms: милість responds to weakness/need, благодать is the wider unmerited-favor basis of salvation.	Keep милість and благодать lexically and conceptually distinct throughout; treat милість as this letter’s own programmatic pastoral term (opens at 1:2, closes the imperative section at 1:21, governs 1:22-23), parallel in weight to боротися for the polemical half.
вагатися (waver/doubt, διακρίνομαι)	No prior fixed rendering; risk of conflation with the letter’s condemned безбожні (ungodly false teachers) — “wavering” believers are a pastorally distinct, sympathetic category, not a lesser degree of the same condemnation.	Explicit exposition distinguishing genuine doubt among believers from the settled rebellion of the false teachers; mercy toward the wavering must never be read as tolerance toward false teaching itself.
спасайте, витягаючи з огню (snatch from the fire, 1:23)	Reuses Critical спасіння root; risk of the rescue imagery being softened into a gentler “help them” and losing its connection to 1:7’s eternal-fire judgment imagery.	Preserve full emergency-rescue urgency; cross-reference 1:7 explicitly in exposition.
одежа, осквернена від тіла (garment stained by the flesh, 1:23)	Symbolic image inheriting the standing тіло/σάρξ-σῶμα Critical caution; a bare literal rendering risks either comic literalism or an unintended condemnation of the physical body itself.	Requires exposition of the image as symbolic moral contamination, not a comment on the body’s dignity; disambiguate тіло on first occurrence in this verse independently (do not assume carryover from earlier occurrences at 1:7-8).
страх (fear, reverent, φόβος)	Ordinary Ukrainian страх defaults easily to psychological terror/anxiety, intensified by the current wartime emotional register in which “страх” is an especially live, frequently-discussed public-discourse word.	Gloss explicitly as disciplined, self-protective spiritual carefulness, not terror; distinguish from the word’s heightened wartime connotation.

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

Available Ukrainian terms	Weakness	Recommended strategy
берегти / зберегти (τηρέω / φυλάσσω, “keep/guard”)	The letter’s single most important recurring verb, deliberately reused across radically different referents (angels judicially kept in chains, 1:6; believers graciously kept for Christ, 1:1, 1:21, 1:24). Ukrainian has several near-synonym verbs (тримати, охороняти, пильнувати) that could each translate τηρέω individually but would, if mixed, destroy Jude’s ironic wordplay linking judgment and grace under one verb.	Single consistent Ukrainian root (берегти/зберегти) enforced across every occurrence — a structural cross-verse consistency rule equivalent to the baseline’s Romans 8:28/10:9-10 mandate, not a per-verse stylistic choice.
берегти себе (keep yourselves, 1:21) vs. зберегти (God’s keeping, 1:24)	Genuine theological tension (human responsibility vs. divine ability) that word choice alone cannot resolve; a careless translation risks either a self-effort-only reading (an especially live risk given the baseline’s caution about praxis-only readings of Christian life in the majority liturgical traditions) or assurance detached from responsibility.	Teach both together explicitly as Jude’s own synergy, using the identical root to make the literary resolution (1:21’s imperative answered by 1:24’s declaration) visible in the Ukrainian text itself.
поставити перед Своєю славою непорочними (present blameless, 1:24) / непорочний (blameless, ἄμωμος)	Reuses слава (glory) — see §2 crowded-neighborhood note; непорочний itself risks bleeding into the everyday folk-religious sense of ritual object-purity already flagged for освячення in the baseline.	Distinguish слава’s two senses in this letter explicitly (see below); teach непорочний as eschatological, forensic-and-transformative completeness, not ritual cleanliness.

1.6 Doxology and God’s Preserving Power (Jude 1:24-25)

Available Ukrainian terms	Weakness	Recommended strategy
слава (glory, δόξα)	Used in two distinct senses within the same short letter: 1:8’s plural “glorious ones” (likely angelic beings, object of the false teachers’ contempt) vs. 1:24-25’s singular reference to God’s own radiant glory. Reused Ukrainian word carries no morphological marker of this shift, and also carries the baseline’s standing “Слава Україні” patriotic-resonance caution.	Flag the sense-shift explicitly on first occurrence of each sense; do not allow readers to collapse “glorious ones” and “God’s glory” into one referent.
влада (authority, ἐξουσία, 1:25; same word as κυριότης, 1:8)	See §2 below — the letter’s largest single lexical-convergence problem.	See ranked risk #1, §4.
Спаситель (Savior, σωτήρ)	Reuses baseline спасіння root; low lexical risk, but must not default unqualified into any one tradition’s fuller soteriological system, per baseline’s standing instruction for спасіння generally.	Anchor explicitly to Christ’s concrete death-and-resurrection saving work in the doxology’s immediate context (“through Jesus Christ our Lord”).
сила (κράτος, might/power)	Same Ukrainian word as the baseline’s established сила Божа (Romans 1:16); unlike Romans, no енергія-collision risk here since this is a doxological, non-soteriological usage.	Treat the cross-curriculum continuity as an asset — readers can recognize the link between “God’s saving power” (Romans) and “God’s doxological power” (Jude) without new fencing required.

---

2. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods

2.1 Genuinely missing vocabulary (no adequate single Ukrainian term exists)

Concept	Gap	Mitigation
The κρίμα/κρίσις verdict-vs-process distinction	Ukrainian’s judgment vocabulary (осуд, суд, засудження) does not map one-to-one onto Greek’s two distinct roots with the same density Jude uses.	Fix осуд = κρίμα, суд = κρίσις by convention (not literal equivalence) and enforce consistently; document the convention rather than search for a nonexistent perfect match.
The singular/plural force of Paul’s “seed” argument type-pattern reused implicitly in Jude’s OT typology	Not directly present in Jude, but Jude’s three-part OT typology (Israel/angels/Sodom) and further Cain/Balaam/Korah triad have no single Ukrainian rhetorical-summary term; “тип” (type) or “приклад-пересторога” (warning-example) must be supplied as an interpretive label not present in the Greek text itself.	Supply “приклад-пересторога” (warning-example) as a consistent expository label across all OT typology sections; this is an added scaffolding term, not a translation of any single Greek word, and should be flagged as such.
A single Ukrainian word distinguishing φόβος (reverent caution) from the wartime-intensified everyday sense of страх	No alternate common word carries the “disciplined self-protective carefulness” sense without either sounding archaic (богобоязливість) or introducing an unfamiliar neologism.	Retain страх but mandatory explanatory gloss every occurrence in this letter — accept the imperfect fit rather than force an artificial substitute.

2.2 Crowded semantic neighborhoods requiring explicit fencing

Ukrainian term	Competing senses converging on it	Fencing required
влада	(1) κυριότης, angelic/spiritual dominion disparaged by false teachers (1:8); (2) ἐξουσία, God’s own worshipped authority (1:25); (3) the baseline’s already-flagged everyday political sense (government legitimacy, martial law, contested church-jurisdiction claims among OCU/UOC/UGCC).	Three-way fence: exposition must state at 1:8 that this names a specific angelic-order dispute, not civil government; at 1:25 that this is a distinct Greek root (ἐξουσία) rendered with the same Ukrainian word for lack of a better option, condemned in one place and worshipped in the other; and throughout, that neither use endorses or critiques any specific Ukrainian political or ecclesial authority structure. This is the single highest lexical-convergence risk in the letter.
слава	(1) angelic “glorious ones” (1:8); (2) God’s own glory (1:24-25); (3) baseline’s patriotic “Слава Україні” resonance.	Two-sense fence within the letter (angelic beings vs. God’s own glory) plus the standing baseline caution against patriotic bleed-through; flag explicitly on first occurrence of each biblical sense.
тіло	(1) σάρξ, ethical “flesh”/corrupted nature (1:7, 1:8, 1:23); (2) σῶμα, neutral physical body (not directly used in Jude’s extant text, but present in readers’ minds from the dignified body-theology of Orthodox/Greek Catholic icon and resurrection doctrine, and from the Galatians portion of this same curriculum); (3) ψυχικός-adjacent “тілесні” (Ohienko’s rendering at 1:19, a third, unrelated Greek root, ψυχή).	Independent first-occurrence disambiguation within Jude itself (do not assume carryover from Galatians); explicit note that Ohienko’s тілесні at 1:19 is not the same Greek root as σάρξ elsewhere in the letter, to prevent a three-way collision.
Дух / дух	(1) Святий Дух, the Holy Spirit (1:20, with article, lower risk); (2) bare Дух standing for the Holy Spirit (1:19, negated, “не мають Духа,” Critical risk); (3) lowercase дух in secular wartime idiom (“не мають духу” = lost morale/heart).	Mandatory capitalization and gloss at every bare occurrence; explicit statement that the negated construction describes the unregenerate state, not a temporary loss of resolve.
віра	(1) personal trust in Christ (baseline Romans/Galatians sense); (2) confessional/institutional identity (baseline’s standing everyday-usage caution); (3) Jude’s “the faith” as a fixed, defended apostolic doctrinal deposit (1:3, 1:20).	Explicit gloss required wherever Jude uses “the faith” with the definite article/possessive force, distinguishing sense (3) from both (1) and (2).
благодать / милість	Grace (unmerited favor, salvation’s basis) vs. mercy (compassionate response to weakness/wavering) — genuinely overlapping but distinct categories both active in this short letter.	Keep both terms and both concepts distinct in exposition; do not treat милість as a mere synonym or lesser intensity of благодать.
осуд / суд	Verdict vs. the act/process of judging — see §2.1 above.	Convention-based fencing, enforced for consistency rather than because the words are naturally distinct in ordinary usage.
доля (fate, in ремствувач/незадоволений своєю долею, 1:16)	Ordinary secular idiom describing the false teachers’ fatalistic grumbling, vs. the baseline’s standing Critical caution that доля/фатум must never substitute for God’s own providential agency (провидіння Боже, election/providence doctrines).	Explicit note that this idiomatic use describes the false teachers’ own (implicitly wrong) fatalistic self-pity, not Jude’s or the curriculum’s own theology of providence; the baseline’s doля-caution applies to the letter’s own theological claims, not to this character description.

---

3. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions

Term	Decision	Rationale
Владика (δεσπότης)	Native Ukrainian term, NOT transliteration (деспот forbidden)	The Greek-derived transliteration деспот has undergone total semantic inversion in modern Ukrainian (= tyrant); native Владика preserves dignity and connects to existing ecclesiastical address usage. Paraphrase (“Абсолютний Володар”) was considered and rejected as unnecessarily novel where an established term exists.
Спаситель (σωτήρ)	Native Ukrainian term, established Bible tradition	No transliteration option is idiomatic in Ukrainian for this title; native rendering is universal across all three traditions.
амінь, архангел, апостол (ἀμήν, ἀρχάγγελος, ἀπόστολος)	Transliteration, established	These are already fully naturalized loanwords in Ukrainian religious and even secular vocabulary; transliteration is the only viable and expected form, per Ohienko precedent.
Содом і Гоморра, Каїн, Валаам, Кора, Енох, Мойсей, Михаїл (proper names)	Transliteration, fixed Ohienko forms	Standard proper-name transliteration practice per the baseline’s transliteration standards list; no paraphrase applicable to proper nouns.
”раз дана” / “одноразово передана” (ἅπαξ παραδοθείσῃ)	Paraphrase (compound phrase), not single-word transliteration or loan-coinage	No single Ukrainian word captures “once-for-all handed-down”; a compound phrase, split by register (Scripture citation vs. exposition) per the baseline’s established Ohienko/modern-literary convention, is required. Transliterating a Greek-derived technical term here was considered and rejected as it would produce an opaque neologism unfamiliar to any reader.
”приклад-пересторога” (supplied label for OT typology)	Paraphrase / scaffolding term, not present in source text	Genuinely missing vocabulary (§2.1); an interpretive label must be constructed rather than translated, and must be flagged in Phase 2 documentation as an added expository device, not a rendering of any specific Greek word.
δεσμοῖς ἀιδίοις → вічні кайдани; πυρὸς αἰωνίου → вічний огонь	Paraphrase (adjective + noun), not transliteration	Both are ordinary descriptive phrases with established, unambiguous Ukrainian equivalents; no transliteration is applicable or would be intelligible.
ψυχικός → душевні (preferred) vs. тілесні (Ohienko)	Native paraphrase choice between two existing Ukrainian words, not transliteration	Transliterating “психікос” was never a serious option (would be unintelligible as a theological register word); the choice is between two native adjectives, resolved in favor of душевні to avoid compounding the тіло/σάρξ-σῶμα collision (§2.2).
Ідіоматичний “не мають Духа” vs. hypothetical loan-coinage “пневма”	Native Ukrainian term (Дух), transliteration explicitly rejected	A transliterated “пневма” was considered as a way to sidestep the дух/Дух ambiguity entirely but rejected: it would be unintelligible to ordinary readers and break continuity with the entire established Дух/Святий Дух vocabulary already fixed across Romans, Galatians, and this letter. Capitalization + mandatory glossing is the correct mitigation instead.

General principle applied throughout: transliteration is reserved for (a) proper names, (b) already-fully-naturalized loanwords with zero semantic drift risk (амінь, апостол, архангел), and (c) cases where no native Ukrainian term exists at any register. Paraphrase (native compound phrases) is preferred wherever a native theological register already exists, even when the paraphrase requires more words than the Greek original, consistent with the baseline’s established handling of terms like “obedience of faith” (послух віри) and “imputed righteousness” (зарахована праведність).

---

4. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities in Jude

Ranked by combined severity (doctrinal centrality × likelihood of reader misreading × absence of a clean lexical fix), for Phase 2 review prioritization.

1. влада double convergence (κυριότης 1:8 / ἐξουσία 1:25) — Same Ukrainian word renders two distinct Greek terms with opposite theological valence (condemned vs. worshipped) inside one 25-verse letter, compounded by влада’s status as one of the most politically live words in wartime Ukrainian public discourse. No lexical fix exists; requires mandatory exposition at both occurrences. Highest risk in the letter.

2. “the faith once for all delivered” vs. Передання (1:3) — Direct doctrinal collision between Jude’s closed, non-additive deposit and two of Ukraine’s three living traditions’ ongoing, accretive tradition-category (Передання). Silence here would function as an unstated theological endorsement neither text nor curriculum intends.

3. Содом і Гоморра / “strange flesh” political live-wire (1:7) — Intersects a currently active Ukrainian political and cultural fault line (sexuality, “traditional values,” EU alignment) with a genuine unresolved scholarly exegetical dispute (same-sex activity vs. human-angelic union). Highest risk of the curriculum being read as taking a side in a live public debate it does not intend to enter.

4. не мають Духа (1:19) — Negated bare πνεῦμα against the backdrop of “бойовий дух” as an intensely live wartime idiom; a single missed capitalization or gloss could invert the doctrine into a statement about morale rather than regeneration.

5. берегти/зберегти consistency across 1:1, 1:6, 1:13, 1:21, 1:24 — Not an ambiguity of meaning but a structural risk: inconsistent verb choice across five occurrences would silently destroy Jude’s deliberate ironic wordplay linking angels’ judicial keeping to believers’ gracious keeping, without any single mistranslation being individually “wrong.”

6. Владика vs. деспот (1:4) — A single wrong letter-substitution-level error (choosing the surface-similar transliteration) would invert Christ’s benevolent sovereignty into tyranny; zero tolerance for this substitution given its severity if it occurred even once.

7. слава’s two senses within one letter (1:8 vs. 1:24-25) — Angelic “glorious ones” vs. God’s own glory, using the identical Ukrainian word with no morphological signal of the shift, compounded by the baseline’s patriotic-resonance caution.

8. Мойсеєве тіло (1:9) and Енох пророкував (1:14-15) — extrabiblical citations — Both raise live canon/inspiration questions across three different Ukrainian church canon traditions; risk that Jude’s illustrative use of non-canonical material is misheard as tacit canonization, or conversely that its inspired authority in context is unduly minimized.

9. тіло’s triple collision (σάρξ / σῶμα / ψυχικός-тілесні) — Structural, language-level risk compounding across 1:7, 1:8, 1:19, and 1:23 with no adjacent “fruit of the Spirit” passage (as in Galatians) available to anchor the distinction; must be disambiguated independently within Jude.

10. берегти себе (1:21) vs. зберегти (1:24) — synergy of human responsibility and divine keeping — Risk of either a self-effort-only reading (compounding the baseline’s praxis-only-Christianity caution for the majority liturgical traditions) or an assurance-without-responsibility reading; the tension is genuine and must be taught, not resolved by word choice.

11. боротися / свобода-adjacent wartime resonance (1:3) — Risk of collapsing Jude’s doctrinal-defense argument into either a metaphor for the literal war or, conversely, an academic abstraction that loses its felt cost for a wartime readership.

12. вагатися vs. безбожні — mercy toward doubt vs. condemnation of false teaching (1:22 vs. throughout) — Risk of conflating a sympathetic pastoral category (wavering believers) with the letter’s condemned category (ungodly false teachers), which would undercut the entire doctrine of Mercy and Rescue of the Wavering.

13. доля idiom in ремствувач/незадоволений своєю долею (1:16) — Minor but real risk that the false teachers’ fatalistic grumbling idiom bleeds into readers’ perception of the letter’s own (opposite) theology of purposive divine keeping.

14. страх’s wartime-intensified register (1:23) — Risk that reverent, disciplined caution is heard instead as psychological terror, given страх’s currently heightened emotional salience in Ukrainian public life.

15. непорочний / освячення folk-blessing adjacency (1:24) — Lower but non-trivial risk that eschatological “blamelessness” is heard through the lens of the everyday ritual object-blessing sense already flagged as Critical for освячення in the baseline.

---

5. Full-Book Coverage Checklist (Jude 1:1–25)

Verse(s)	Status
1:1	New/reused terms addressed: покликаний, раб, брат, берегти (τηρέω introduced). See §1.5, §2.2.
1:2	New/reused terms addressed: милість, мир, любов (triadic greeting). See §1.4.
1:3	New/reused terms addressed: віра (sense-shift), раз дана/одноразово передана, боротися, святі, закликати. See §1.1, §2.2, §3, §4 (#2, #11).
1:4	New/reused terms addressed: благодать (misuse sense), Владика, Господь, осуд, безбожний. See §1.1, §1.2, §3, §4 (#6).
1:5	New/reused terms addressed: спасіння (“common salvation”/Exodus type), погубив/знищив. Reviewed — no new gap beyond §1.3 Israel typology note.
1:6	New/reused terms addressed: ангел, вічні кайдани, суд, берегти. See §1.3, §1.5.
1:7	New/reused terms addressed: Содом і Гоморра, інше тіло/чуже тіло, вічний огонь, тіло (σάρξ sense introduced). See §1.3, §2.2, §4 (#3, #9).
1:8	New/reused terms addressed: тіло, слава (angelic sense), влада (κυριότης), зневажати/хулити. See §1.2, §1.6, §2.2, §4 (#1, #7).
1:9	New/reused terms addressed: архангел, диявол, Мойсеєве тіло, суд. See §1.3, §4 (#8).
1:10	Reviewed — no new gap; зневажати/хулити reused, no additional risk beyond 1:8.
1:11	New/reused terms addressed: погубив/знищив, дорога Каїнова/помилка Валаамова/бунт Кореїв. See §1.3, §2.1.
1:12	New/reused terms addressed: вечері любові/бенкети любові (distinguished from любов), пасти себе, безплідний (dark inversion of плід Духа). Reviewed — fencing supplied in §2.2 (любов entry).
1:13	New/reused terms addressed: морок, тьма/темрять, зорі блудячі, берегти (echoed). Reviewed — no new gap beyond §1.5 keeping-motif and морок/σκότος fencing already established in prior glossary.
1:14	New/reused terms addressed: пророкувати, Енох пророкував (canon question). See §4 (#8).
1:15	New/reused terms addressed: суд, грішники безбожні. Reviewed — no new gap beyond §1.2.
1:16	New/reused terms addressed: пожадливість, ремствувач/незадоволений своєю долею (доля idiom). See §2.2, §4 (#13).
1:17	New/reused terms addressed: улюблені/любі, апостол, Господь. Reviewed — no new gap.
1:18	New/reused terms addressed: в останні часи, насмішник, пожадливість (echoed). Reviewed — no new gap beyond §1.2 eschatological-formula caution already in prior glossary.
1:19	New/reused terms addressed: душевні/тілесні, не мають Духа. See §1.2, §2.2, §4 (#4, #9).
1:20	New/reused terms addressed: святий (найсвятіша віра), Святий Дух, будувати себе, любі. See §1.1, §2.2.
1:21	New/reused terms addressed: берегти себе, любов, вічне життя, милість. See §1.4, §1.5, §4 (#10).
1:22	New/reused terms addressed: вагатися, милість. See §1.4, §4 (#12).
1:23	New/reused terms addressed: спасайте витягаючи з огню, страх, одежа осквернена від тіла, тіло (echoed). See §1.4, §2.2, §4 (#14, #15).
1:24	New/reused terms addressed: берегти/зберегти (climactic), від упадку/непохитними, поставити перед Своєю славою непорочними, слава (God’s-own sense), непорочний, радість (велика). See §1.5, §1.6, §4 (#5, #7, #15).
1:25	New/reused terms addressed: Спаситель, величність, сила, влада (ἐξουσία), вік, амінь. See §1.6, §4 (#1).

Coverage confirmation: All 25 verses of Jude have been reviewed. No verse contributes vocabulary or doctrine outside the six curriculum doctrines listed in the curriculum parameters; every verse’s load-bearing terms are addressed above, either with a newly identified gap/fencing requirement or with an explicit note that it reuses vocabulary already fenced elsewhere in this document.

---

This document extends analysis/08_core_glossary.md and assets/bible_term_registry.json and must be read alongside them. It does not introduce any new Ukrainian renderings beyond those already fixed in the baseline and prior Jude-specific glossary; its purpose is to make explicit the reasoning, weaknesses, and fencing decisions behind those renderings for Phase 2 translator and reviewer use.