Typical/Default word order in English requires Core Arguments to appear closer to the verb than Oblique Arguments:
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.
Now, 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 secondly, and more significantly, such an argument shows little awareness of how the languages work. When we translation 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.
Now, on to the text at hand: Acts 15:37.
Last night I came across this in a KJV tradition translation and it caught my eye. So I looked at a variety of other translations. Here are the ones with a rather 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. So what we have here, 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 the readers. Now the translators of the KJV seem to have recognized this fact, which is why they do not have an “also” (though it is in Greek). The ASV, in following the the KJV, while also wanting to be the most literal translation it could, 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 thus 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 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 them have draw attention to John, called Mark, with an “also” or “too,” loosing the Focused nature of the Direct Object here (the NIrV, GNB, and NCV).
But this is where I get nitpicky (which is a silly word). Let’s talk about accuracy/literalness now. And 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-. That makes sense, I suppose, 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?
Well, 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.
Then 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 at this verse. That’s right. I said the NLT. Here’s its translation:
Barnabas agreed and wanted to take along John Mark. NLT
For the verb itself, the NLT has got it right. They’ve successfully kept 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 conveying the meaning in English. After I read it, I check and 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 translation the καί, which, I would argue, is necessary for accurately conveying the emphatic nature of the Greek’s καὶ τὸν Ἰωάννην τὸν καλούμενον Μᾶρκον.
And that’s where things got amusing for me in this little search. 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.” We are invariably going to be dealing with two potential word orders:
Take along X
Take X along
Now, think about how you would say both of these out loud. Which one of them would more likely lead you to place intonational emphasis upon X? I’m willing to bet that you’re more likely to say the second one (that and I’ve already surveyed people in the library where I wrote this). 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 expect that The Message would get it right where everyone else failed?