I have been a country music fan my entire life. We received our first 78 record player in 1951. A few months later we got a record Lefty Frizzell, “Mom and Dad Waltz.”
I was not quite 3 years old and could’t read. But I loved that the song so much that my mother placed a large X (in pencil) so I knew which side to place up to listen to the song. I played it so often, I knew the words by the time I was 3, and sang my heart out. Note: I am not a good singer, but at age 3 who cared? That song began a 65 year love of old (now) country and bluegrass music.
Over the decades I have listened to recordings of it. I have listened to many who have tried to mimic the sound of Lefty. But it still doesn’t quite make it. When the internet came along I checked out this song very early. Loved it again like 1952.
But mimic nostalgia leaves me feeling a little disheartened. Obviously I have to ask myself, can I ever listen to Mom and Dad Waltz apart from Lefty himself? For several decades I decided I couldn’t.
Nostalgia, New Again
About two weeks ago I as I was listening to Jamie Lin Wilson (superb singer I heard live in back porch series a year ago), I noticed another singer with her: Brennen Leigh. Excellent singer. And then found out she had recorded some of Lefty’s songs, including Mom and Dad Waltz.
Of course, I listened! I purchased through iTunes immediately!!
As I listened there was something intriguing about her voice and song choices. Yes, it was nostalgic but her voice also is contemporary. And she didn’t try to mimick. Rather, she has a voice that rings true, brings out the soul of the song in her own way. She is spot-on in her singing, in her instrumentals (great guitarist). Listening to her sing the song was like going back 64 years and capturing that moment for me.
Not often I write about music, but this song has a special place in my heart. And Brennen Leigh reignited memories and joy. Thank you.
This photo is of my great grandfather (Joseph Brown) and great grandmother (Jenny Smith), married June 29, 1900. My parents married on June 29, 1946. Joseph and Jenny had 11 children, and Jenny died at age 37.
Jenny Smith’s parents (Emma Cooper and Sam Smith) were married in 1870.
This photo is a Jenny Smith’s Cooper grandparents (photo may have been taken at the 1870 wedding of their daughter, Emma Cooper).
My grandmother, Gladys, is on the far left in this photo below.
Gladys and Paul Carlson were married June 29, 1932 (second marriage for her).
And my parents were engaged on June 29, 1946 and married September 29, 1946.
And then this happened.
And yes, it got down to -40° that night. Good thing we got married at 1 PM, it was 10° above zero!
And our younger son …
met this beautiful lady.
And together they have five children. Is that why he is sleeping at work?
She is more than a DIL to us, she is like our own daughter. Love her so much, just as we love our sons, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren.
MEV: Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, even as I had pity on you?
Note that same Greek word in a parallel construction is translated two different ways. NKJV does the same as MEV.
NKJV: Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?
Consider other translations
NAS: Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?
NET: Should you not have shown mercy to your fellow slave, just as I showed it to you?
ESV: And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?
HCSB: Shouldn’t you also have had mercy on your fellow slave, as I had mercy on you?
NIV: Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?
GW: Shouldn’t you have treated the other servant as mercifully as I treated you?
Other uses of the same word (“have mercy”) in Matthew in MEV:
5:7 Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy
9:27 “Son of David, have mercy on us!”
15:22 Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David
17:15 Lord, have mercy on my son
20:30 Have mercy on us, O Lord, Son of David
Every occurrence of ἐλεέω in MEV in Matthew is translated as “have mercy.” It is even more strange then, in this passage (18:33) that it be translated two different ways, and neither consistent with the way it was translated throughout the book. Since the intent of the entire pericope (Matthew 18:21-35) is the parallel response between the master and the unforgiving servant, it would make better sense to translate the word the same way in this context (“have mercy”) especially within the same sentence.
This verse has been a sort of litmus test. How do we translate the future perfect passive participles?
ἔσται δεδεμένα (bind)
ἔσται λελυμένα (loose)
The MEV translates as simple future passives, as do most other translations
MEV Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven
NKJV Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven
HCSB I assure you: Whatever you bind on earth is already bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is already loosed in heaven.
(with footnotes: earth will be bound… earth will be loosed. The text version catches the passive sense and prior action by God, “already done”)
ESV Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
(with footnote: Or shall have been bound . . . shall have been loosed, which indicates future perfect passive)
NIV Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
(with footnote: Or will have been, in both uses, which indicates future perfect passive)
I think NAS offers a consistent translation of the verb forms:
NAS Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.
What difference does this make?
In one sense it doesn’t seem to make much difference. As we explore the options, notice that most translations offer a future passive sense (“will be bound” “will be loosed”). Such a translation makes the authority rest on the person making the declaration. “I declare it… it will be done.”
Looking at NAS (and ESV and NIV with footnotes) the the focus of authority resides with God and His prior action, not the person making the declaration. In essense, when the person declares “it is bound,” he or she can do so because “it will have already been bound in heaven (by God) prior to the declaration.” Likewise, when the person declares “it is loosed” he or she can do so because “it will have already been done in heaven (by God) prior to the declaration.” It is God’s prior authority and declaration that is being announced, not the individual’s own authority. The person announces God’s already determined response.
This frees the person making the declaration from being the source of authority. And it let’s God Word be determinative.
I didn’t think much about it until I read it in NAS as well. The challenge was Psalm 11:7 (“His countenance beholds the upright” MEV and “The upright will behold His face” NAS). Who is the subject of the sentence (doing the action) and who is the direct object (receiving the action)? It depends on which translation you use.
God is the subject, “upright ones” are the direct object and hence “His countenance beholds the upright” (MEV joins KJV, NKJV, KJ21, REB)
People (“upright”) are the subject and God is the direct object and thus: “The upright will behold His face” (NAS joins most modern translations: ESV, NIV, HCSB, NET, etc.)
Some textual observations
Robert Alter (The Book of Psalms) offers this as an explanation for why he favors the second translation:
With the wicked disposed of in the previous verse, the psalm ends on this positive note of the upright beholding God—even as God from the heavens beholds all humankind. In the Hebrew, the noun is singular and the verb is plural; presumably one of the two (probably the verb) should be adjusted. The Masoretic text reads “their face,” with no obvious antecedent for the plural, but variant Hebrew versions have “His face.” (p. 34)
Leopold in his commentary (Expoistion of the Psalms) offers a different view of the data and favors the first option.
Since the whole emphasis lies in what God does and is, and that alone constitutes the solid basis of comfort, we have translated the last clause: “His countenance beholds the upright,” implying that same watchful care that was stressed above. The words could have been translated: “The upright shall behold His face.” But panemo, which equals panaw, His countence, being plural, can readily take the verb in the plural, yechesu, which is easier to construe than to regard the singular yahsar as a collective plural and so make it the subject of the verb. (p. 128)
As both authors note, the text is not as clear or simple as we would like. As I reflected further, I noticed that in Psalm 11:4-7, the emphasis on God’s actions, especially as He “examines mankind” (v. 4) and “tests the righteous ones” (v. 5) [God is the subject]. The wicked receive the crush of God’s disfavor (vv. 5b-6), and then the Psalm ends with a return to the “righteous ones.” The subject is God in vv. 4-6. It makes sense now in v. 7 that the same God who examined and tested the righteous now looks upon the righteous (“upright”) [same Hebrew word: צַדִּ֪יק [tzaddiq] used in v. 5 and v. 7.] without any judgment.
At this point I find that either option can work, but the first option (“His countenance beholds the upright/righteous”) seems more consistent with the flow of the entire Psalm. I think it also reflects the Aaronic benediction (Num. 6:24-26), specifically v. 25: The LORD make His face shine on you.”
An another point in favor of the first option is the application. What is more comforting? To look upon God’s face or to have God look upon us? From the prospective of God looking at examination of us (v. 5), it carries more weight that God looks again at us with no judgment attached.
Almost two years ago I purchased an Modern English Version (MEV) Bible. Then I provided serveral posts about the translation itself. See: MEV Part 1, MEV Part 2, MEV Readability. One of my criticisms was the size of the print: small print size is not exaggerating. I could not use it on a daily basis.
So two weeks ago I purchased the Large Print MEV. What a difference in reading! It is readable even in low light environments. I have been reading it every day for 10+ days. The size of the Bible is not a burden to carry. I could also use regularly in teaching/preaching without the size or weight being a problem. My preference is a single column text, but MEV does not come with it. But I will happily read this large print Bible.
The bleed through seems less of a problem, not being a distraction at all (it looks worse in this photo than in real life). I also noticed that the red letter in this font works well. I am not a fan of red letter editions due to readability problems. But this is one of the best red-letter choices (font design, size, and red color choice). The paper color is a faint off-white, which makes reading easier.
There is one drawback to making it as large print, the editors removed all cross references (see above photo). In an ideal world, a little smaller print with those retained would be best. But that is a technical publishing issue.
Now that I can read it easily, I am reading it daily for devotional reading. But I am also reading to see if there are any translation issues. One stuck out immediately (reading John 1-3).
Translation Choice: Only or Only-begotten
The Greek word, μονογενής, had been traditionally translated as “only begotten” (KJV, NKJV, NAS) while many more contemporary translations have used one of the following translation choices: “one and only son” or “unique son” or “only son” (NRSV, TSV, NIV, NET, HCSB, NLT, GW).
BDAG (2000) offers this about the divided view of which is the best translation choice:
μονογενὴς υἱός is used only of Jesus. The renderings only, unique may be quite adequate for all its occurrences here
[Several scholars] prefer to regard μονογενὴς as somewhat heightened in mng. in J and 1J to only-begotten or begotten of the Only One, in view of the emphasis on γεννᾶσθαι ἐκ θεοῦ (J 1:13 al.); in this case it would be analogous to πρωτότοκος (Ro 8:29; Col 1:15 al.)
NET has an translation note:
Or “of the unique one.” Although this word is often translated “only begotten,” such a translation is misleading, since in English it appears to express a metaphysical relationship. The word in Greek was used of an only child (a son [Luke 7:12, 9:38] or a daughter [Luke 8:42]). It was also used of something unique (only one of its kind) such as the mythological Phoenix (1 Clem. 25:2). From here it passes easily to a description of Isaac (Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Ant., 1.13.1 [1.222]) who was not Abraham’s only son, but was one-of-a-kind because he was the child of the promise. Thus the word means “one-of-a-kind” and is reserved for Jesus in the Johannine literature of the NT. While all Christians are children of God, Jesus is God’s Son in a unique, one-of-a-kind sense. The word is used in this way in all its uses in the Gospel of John (1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18).
Since MEV follow the KJV text base and generally its translation choices, I discovered it wasn’t as clear-cut as I thought.
μονογενής in MEV
The Greek word appears 9 times in the NT. I am comparing MEV choice in translation to NKJV since they share a common heritage
NKJV: a dead man was being carried out, the only son of his mother;
MEV: a man who had died was being carried out, the only son of his mother
NKJV: for he had an only daughter about twelve years of age, and she was dying.
MEV: for he had an only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she was dying.
NKJV: saying, “Teacher, I implore You, look on my son, for he is my only child.”
MEV: saying, “Teacher, I beg You, look upon my son, for he is my only child.
NKJV: and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
MEV and we saw His glory, the glory as the only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth.
NKJV The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
MEV The only Son, who is at the Father’s side, has made Him known
NKJV For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son,
MEV For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son
NKJV because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
MEV because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God
NKJV he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son [Isaac],
MEV he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son [Isaac]
1 John 4:9
NKJV God has sent His only begotten Son into the world.
MEV God sent His onlybegotten Son into the world
The two that stuck out in mind are John 1:14, and 18. Why change in those two verses to “only Son” and yet in John 3:16, 18 use “only begotten Son”? It would seem that when dealing with the same author and there are four verses that deal with the same concept, and Greek word, why not translate all four the same way “only begotten” as in NKJV, or “one and only” as in most modern translations.
I would question both NKJV and MEV in translating Heb. 11:17 as “only begotten.” It would be more consistent with the translation decisions in the Lukan passages listed above.
Overall, I am still impressed with the translation choices. Even a small change in John 1:14 seems like a positive using “and we saw His glory” rather than “and we beheld His glory.”