Typical/Default word order in English requires Core Arguments to appear closer to the verb than Oblique Arguments and Adjuncts.

We do not tend to say things like:

The doctor removed with a knife her kidney.

Rather, we would tend to say:

The doctor removed her kidney with a knife.

In both sentences “her kidney” is a core argument and “with a knife” is an adjunct.

I know that both these sentences and the ones in the translations below are comprehensible. That’s not what’s at stake here. They mean basically the same thing, so when you comment on this post, please don’t give that whole argument about how this stuff about naturalness doesn’t really matter as long as the translation is “literal.” For one, I’m really tired of that argument and I think its nonsense anyway, so you won’t convince me with it. But second, and more significantly, such an argument shows little awareness of how the languages work. When we translate Greek word order that is both natural and default in such a way that makes the English word order neither natural nor default, we also subtly change the meaning of the text. Specifically, we change the pragmatics of the text. When we place a prepositional phrase between the verb and the object, we draw greater attention to it. Were someone to actually speak the first sentence above, they would likely stress the phrase “with a knife” in their intonation. They may even pause after saying, “with a knife.” Third, its debatable whether this could be consider a “literal” translation anyway.

On to the text at hand: Acts 15:37.

I came across this verse in a KJV tradition translation and it caught my eye. So I looked at a variety of other translations. Here are the ones with an awkward sounding “with them” placed directly between the verb and the direct object – so much for the translations that are supposedly “good for public reading…”

Barnabas wanted to take with them also John, who was called Mark, NAB

And Barnabas was minded to take with them John also, who was called Mark. ASV

Now Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark. ESV

Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark. NRSV

And Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark. RSV

And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. KJV

There’s another problem from an English perspective with these translations. Its the combination of the strange position of “with them” and the “also” of the NAB & ASV. In English, “also” marks a focused constituent in a given clause. What we have in the NAB & ASV is essentially focus overkill and its often ungrammatical. We have two emphatic constituents in the same clause. This sort of thing can only confuse readers. The KJV translators seem to have recognized this fact, which is why they do not have an “also” (though it is in Greek). The ASV, following the KJV, while also wanting to be the most literal translation, reinserted the “also” and it seems that the NAB, independently of the ASV (but perhaps unconsciously influenced by the KJV?), did the same. In contrast, the RSV (and also the ESV & NRSV) followed the KJV more closely.

Here are the translations that maintain the “with them” phrase, but place it in a significantly more natural spot.

Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, T/NIV

Barnabas wanted to take John, called Mark, along with them also. NASB95

Barnabas wanted to bring John called Mark along with them too, NET

Barnabas wanted to take John Mark with them, NCV

Barnabas wanted to take John Mark with them. NIrV

Barnabas wanted to take John Mark with them, GNB

These translations sound infinitely better in modern English (I’m willing to give the KJV the benefit of the doubt that its odd word order could have been felicitous in 1611). But not all of the translations draw attention to John, called Mark, with an “also” or “too,” loosing the focused nature of the Direct Object (the NIrV, GNB, and NCV).

This is where I get nitpicky (which is a silly word). Let’s talk about accuracy/literalness now. This relates to examining why the first group of translations put the prepositional phrase, “with them,” where they did. Here’s the Greek text:

Βαρναβᾶς δὲ ἐβούλετο συμπαραλαβεῖν καὶ τὸν Ἰωάννην τὸν καλούμενον Μᾶρκον·

It seems that the first group of translations, the KJV tradition, were trying to keep “with them” as close to the verb as possible because in the Greek text, “with them” is part of the verb – the derivational prefix συν-. This makes sense, but its about as silly as saying that you shouldn’t split an infinitive in English because Latin can’t. So, is it more literal to keep this prepositional phrase as close to the verb as possible?

Perhaps, but it introduces problems. A truly literal translation would require the translation of the adverbial καί, which modifies the direct object. So if you do not include it, you do not have a literal translation (ESV, NRSV, RSV, KJV). But if you do include it, you still don’t have a literal translation because then we have some sort of double Focus construction that does not exist in the Greek and is barely grammatical (if at all) in English.

If you follow the path of the of the second group of translations, particularly the first three, you’ve distanced the “with them” from the verb, so that we have a natural and default ordering of the Arguments as well as the marking of Focus on the Direct Object – though unfortunately, by placing the “also” right before “called,” the TNIV fails by placing Focus in the wrong place. It should be on the entire direct object “also John, called Mark,” not “John, also called Mark.”

So under normal circumstances, I would definitely say that the approach of the NASB95, and NET is by far the best and most literal approach to dealing with this verb.

But that was before I read what the NLT said. Here’s its translation:

Barnabas agreed and wanted to take along John Mark. NLT

For the verb itself, the NLT got it right. This translation successfully keeps the meaning of the “with them” phrase directly with the verb by recognizing that the Greek prefix συν– doesn’t mean “with.” Rather it denotes the abstract concept of accompaniment, which is often expressed by “with” in English, but not necessarily so. In terms of literal translation, “along” does a far better job of maintaining cohesion with the verb, but also accurately and naturally conveys the meaning in English. After reading the NLT, I found two others that roughly take this approach:

Barnabas persisted in wanting to take along John, who was called Mark, ISV

Barnabas wanted to take along John Mark. HCSB

But of course, there is still an issue with all four of these. None of them translates the καί, which, I would argue, is necessary for accurately conveying the emphatic nature of the Greek’s καὶ τὸν Ἰωάννην τὸν καλούμενον Μᾶρκον.

That’s where things got amusing for me. I decided to check The Message:

Barnabas wanted to take John along, the John nicknamed Mark. The Message

Peterson essentially gets it all right where 15 other committee translations got it wrong.

“Wait,” you say, “He didn’t translate the καί either!” Ah, but there you’d be wrong, though I doubt Peterson did this intentionally. Let me show you why:

When we deal with phrasal verbs such as “take along,” there are two potential word orders:

Take along X

Or

Take X along

Think about how you would say both of these aloud. Which one of them would more likely lead you to place intonational emphasis on X? I’m willing to bet that you’re more likely to say the second one. The fronted direct object makes it more appealing.

And that’s exactly how The Message translates the καί, with its English word order.

Who would have expected that The Message would get it right where everyone else failed?