Print

Print


Isn't that the original edition of the Bible, straight from the source?

I don't read Greek (the original), but I do read Latin, and so in Jerome's Vulgate I found for
Romans 5:15   'donum' = gift
             5:16   'gratia'  = grace or favour
             5:18   no word meaning gift in any sense

My favourite Bible, The Jerusalem Bible,
uses 'gift' for the first two and 'good act' for the third.

I could believe that KJV is responsible for originating the redundancy.
However, my Anglo-Saxon dictionary associates the word gift with dowry,
which can hardly have been considered something to be given freely.
Perhaps we need to rethink the assumption that the
word gift in itself implies a free will offering (freolac in middle english).
All those Christmas gifts we give -- would we still be alive if we didn't?

Thank you for the prompt to actually investigate this phenom.

P.
                                                                                                                
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Michael 
  To: [log in to unmask] 
  Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 3:37 PM
  Subject: Re: OT - St Augustine


  I hope I am not completely stating the obvious, but "Free Gift" is standard Pauline Language (as translated in the Authorized Version 1611) for Justification and Grace.
  Example:

  EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

  5:15     But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

   

  5:16     And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

   

  5:18     Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.







------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  From: "O'Sullivan, Brian P" <[log in to unmask]>
  To: [log in to unmask]
  Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 4:03:05 PM
  Subject: Re: OT - St Augustine

  Nancy and Carroll,

  Don't we normally define "gift" as something not only "free of charge" but also "freely given"? Merriam-Webster defines gift as  "something *voluntarily* transferred by one person to another without compensation" (emphasis mine). I don't think of my taxes as a gift to the government. (Of course, there are gray areas; I will joyfully give my wife a birthday gift, but if I forget, I might be in trouble.) So I still think that "free gift" is technically redundant even if if it means "freely given."

  "Redundant" doesn't necessarily mean "pointless," though; I do think that "free" can be used to put extra emphasis on a quality (either "freely given" or "free of charge," or both) already contained within the word "gift."

  It's interesting that Luther uses the expression "free gift" to suggest that God's mercy is both free of (monetary) charge, unlike papal  indulgences, and also freely given by God--though its recipients are not "free" to decline it without being punished and damned.

  Brian
  ________________________________________
  From: T. S. Eliot Discussion forum. [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carrol Cox [[log in to unmask]]
  Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 11:40 AM
  To: [log in to unmask]
  Subject: Re: OT - St Augustine

  "O'Sullivan, Brian P" wrote:
  >
  > Nancy asked
  >
  > "When did "gift" become "free gift," as if one ever paid for a gift?"
  >
  > I realize that this is a rhetorical question, but Google Books can suggest an actual answer: it happened sometime before 1520, when Luther wrote the following in his "Letter to the Christian Nobility of the Nation of Germany, Concerning the Reform of the Christian Estate":
  >
  > "Let this be your fixed rule: What you must buy from the pope is neither good nor of God; for what is from God, to wit, the Gospel and the works of God, is not only given without money, but the whole world is punished and damned because it has not been willing to receive it as a free gift."

  I think it is possible to gloss "free gift" (of/from God) in a
  non-redundant sense: It  (presumably grace) is a gift which God _freely_
  gives: The gift is neither a _necessary_ expression of the Nature of God
  nor is it given for the purpose of receiving anything back. God does not
  _need_ to create, nor does God _need_ the love of humans; hence all his
  actions with respect to humans (creation, gift, etc) are _free acts."
  "Necessity approach not me" (or something like this) the Father
  proclaims someplace in Book III of PL. God is self-sufficient and need
  not create in order to be Himself.

  Carrol