1. WT misquoting scholars in appendix 6A p. 1579 of the large reference version of the NWT about John 1:1c.
2. WT misquotes Harner: WT quote is in red.
Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1
Author(s): Philip B. Harner Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, No. 1 (Mar., 1973), p. 85.
Clause A, with an arthrous predicate, would mean that logos and theos are equivalent and interchangeable. There would be no ho theos which is not also ho logos. But this equation of the two would contradict the preceding clause of 1:1, in which John writes that o Aoyos 0v 7rpos Tov fhov. This clause suggests relationship, and thus some form of “personal” differentiation, between the two. Clause D, with the verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the logos was “a god” or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of theos but as a distinct being from ho theos. Clause E would be an attenuated form of D. It would mean that the logos was “divine,” without specifying further in what way or to what extent it was divine. It could also im ply that the logos, being only theios, was subordinate to theos.
John evidently wished to say something about the logos that was other than A and more than D and E. Clauses B and C, with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite. This would make B and C equivalent to A, and like A they would then contradict the preceding clause of 1:1.
As John has just spoken in terms of relationship and differentiation between ho logos and ho theos, he would imply in B or C that they share the same nature as belonging to the reality theos. Clauses B and C are identical in meaning but differ slightly in emphasis. C would mean that the logos ( rather than something else) had the nature of theos. B means that the logos has the nature of theos ( rather than something else) . In this clause, the form that John actually uses, the word theos is placed at the beginning for emphasis.
The complete article (pp. 75-87) is available at this website: Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature http://www.jstor.org/stable/3262756
3. Julius R. Mantey testifies that the WT misquoted him. Video clip!
4. WT misquoting author of “Torture Stake” article in appendix 5C p. 1577 large reference NWT
