Harners Article on the Translation of John1:1 Professor Harner published and extensive article in the JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE, 1973, pp. 75-58 on the subject of John 1:1. He said:
"Anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb may function primarily to express the nature or character of the subject, and this qualitative significance may be more important than the question whether the predicate noun itself should be regarded as definite or indefinite." p. 75
"If the (Greek) writer simply wished to represent the subject as one of a class, he could use and anarthrous predicate noun after the verb." p. 87
Harner then proceeded to show the different ways John could have written this verse if he had not meant for us to understand it to read "God was the Word."
HO LOGOS EH HO THEOS.....would mean that LOGOS and THEOS were equivalent and interchangeable. There would be no HO THEOS which is not HO LOGOS. But this equation of the two would contradict the preceding clause of John 1:1.
HO LOGOS EN THEOS........would probably mean that the LOGOS was 'a god' or a divine being of some kind.....
HO LOGOS EN THEIOS.......would mean that the LOGOS was 'divine' without specifying further in what or to what extent...it could also imply that the LOGOS being only THEIOS was subordinate to THEOS....
HO LOGOS THEOS EN........means that the LOGOS (rather than something else) has the nature of THEOS.......
THEOS EN HO LOGOS........means that the LOGOS has the nature of THEOS (rather than something else). In this clause, the form John actually uses, the word THEOS is placed at the beginning for emphasis.
Harner clearly showed that if John had wanted us to understand that Jesus was only 'a god' he would have written HO LOGOS EN THEOS instead of THEOS EN HO LOGOS.
JOHN WAS INSPIRED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT
According to Harner, John meant for us to understand that "God was the Word" by the very way he wrote it (under inspiration of the Holy Spirit). From the very opening to the closing of this Gospel the theme is the Nature and work of the Son of God. He introduces this Gospel with the thought that Jesus is of the same Nature and Essence or Kind as God.
The two clauses that open this Gospel clarify how the third clause should be translated. This is what Colwell was referring to when he said that CONTEXT indicates how such passages should be dealt with. We should therefore examine closely the context of this verse.
John said Jesus was: 1. ETERNAL - en arche
2. EQUAL - pros ton Theon
3. The same essence as the Father - Theos en ho Logos
En arche en ho Logos kai ho Logos en pros ton theos kai THEOS en source In beginning WAS the Word and the Word was with the God and God was originally toward ho logos
the word
There are two very significant words in this passage: WAS and WITH
WAS......Originally the Word WAS - He did not start or begin - He already WAS! When the FIRST creation of God came into being the Word already existed. Therefore, He cannot be one of those creations.
"The verb WAS does not express a completed past, but rather a continuous state. The imperfect tense of the original suggests in this relation, as far as human language can do so, the notion of absolute, supra-temporal existence."
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN, B.F. Westcott, p. 2
WITH.....He was WITH God - He did not come to BE with God because He already WAS! The Greek word for WITH is PROS and in the Accusative Case with a verb of rest this means:
"with the Acc(usative) of a person after verbs of remaining, dwelling, tarrying etc (which requires one to be conceived of always turned towards one).......Jn i:1.."
THAYERS GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, P. 452, Sect 2b
"The phrase (en pros.....) is remarkable. ....The idea conveyed by it is not that of simple coexistence, as of two persons contemplated separately in company, ...... or united under a common conception ...... but of being (in some sense) directed towards and regulated by that with which the relation is fixed (v 19). the personal being of the word was realized in active intercourse with and in perfect communion with God."
The Greek says it all. When the first creation of God came into being the Word was with God in the sense of perfect harmony and communion. The context of John 1:1 only allows for "the Word was God" in a word-for-word translation which the New World Translation claims to be.
Why does the Watchtower Society of Jehovah's Witnesses keep mis-representing what Harner said?