R&S, why did "A Liberal Translation of the New Testament" by Edward Harwood (1768) render John 1:1 as the following?

Because he was of similar mind with other noted Greek scholars such as Professor William Barclay.

“Now normally, except for special reasons, Greek nouns always have the definite article in front of them, . . . When a Greek noun has not got the article in front of it, it becomes rather a description than an identification, and has the character of an adjective rather than of a noun. We can see exactly the same in English. If I say: ‘James is the man’, then I identify James with some definite man whom I have in mind; but, if I say: ‘James is man’, then I am simply describing James as human, and the word man has become a description and not an identification. If John had said ho theos ēn ho logos, using a definite article in front of both nouns, then he would definitely have identified the logos [the Word] with God, but because he has no definite article in front of theos it becomes a description, and more of an adjective than a noun. The translation then becomes, to put it rather clumsily, ‘The Word was in the same class as God, belonged to the same order of being as God ‘. . . . John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God.”—Many Witnesses, One Lord (1963), pages 23, 24.

Liberal translations of the New Testament - whoever produces them - are to be avoided like the plague. Another liberal who translated John 1:1 as "...and the Word was a god" was defrocked Catholic priest Johannes Greber.

In 1937 Greber produced his New Testament, long before the Jehovah's Witnesses produced theirs, with its identical rendering of Jn. 1:1. What was the basis for Greber denying the full deity of the Word, who became flesh as the man, Jesus Christ? Why, spirits that communicated with him and his spiritist wife, to say he must render Jn. 1:1 as "...and the Word was a god".

'Nuff said. Well, for the JW asker of this question, that is.

Because he was ignorant and or biased.

Εν αρχή ήν ο λόγος -- in the beginning was the Word [the Son]

καί ο λόγος ήν πρός τον θεόν -- and the Word was with God

καί θεός ήν ο λόγος -- and the Word was God. John 1:1

Transposing the subject and predicate nouns in the last entry of a series was a common literary device.

both of those interpretations are in error.... I do not know the motivation of Harwood... and I have never read his version

Somebody made something up, and somebody else made up something else about the first something.

People do stuff like that ALL the time.

first of all read the title “A liberal translation of the New Testament” Liberal is defined as ‘open to new ideas’ & Harwood was certainly that. That should explain your question.

Harwood was a close friend of John Taylor and preached a sermon at his funeral in 1761. According to Alexander Gordon writing in the ‘dictionary of national Biography’, Harwood was by this time at one with Taylor's semi-Arian theology; His letter of 30 December 1784 to William Christie shows, for Gordon, that in later life he inclined to Socinianism.

The ideas of Socinianism date from the element of the Protestant Reformation known as the Radical Reformation and have their root in the Italian Anabaptist movement of the 1540s, such as the Antitrinitarian Council of Venice in 1550. Lelio Sozzini was the first of the Italian Antitrinitarians to go beyond Arian beliefs in print and even deny the pre-existence of Christ, Socinian theology, as summarised in the Racovian Catechism, rejected the views of orthodox Christian theology on God's knowledge, on the doctrine of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ, plus many other anti-christian doctrines.

It was said that Socinianism was rooted firmly in ‘scepticism’

In a discussion of the qualities of various English versions, Richard C. Trench wrote, “Of Harwood’s Liberal Translation of the New Testament (London, 1768), and the follies of it, not very far from blasphemous”.

If you read Harwoods translation especially the rendering of the Lord’s prayer you can clearly see that the eloquence of an eighteenth-century quasi clergyman has been substituted for the simple words of Christ.

Update to CF.

CF, I notice that in your comments to Chi Girl, you make use of terms such as diachronic linguistics, substantives, participles, & infinitives. And then I notice, you slipped in the phrase “because he has the characteristics of his CREATOR HIS FATHER”. Now leaving aside the diachronic linguistics, substantives, participles, & infinitives, could you show us where in John1:1 it says that the word was created? Does it not say that in the beginning the word was already with God?

Further update to CF.

In answer to the above CF replied with "check Col 1:15-16". But with all respect, we are not discussing Col 1:15-16 are we CF? We are discussing John 1:1. If you want to start a new thread on Col 1:15-16, I will be quite happy to discuss that. But let's remain on the passage that this thread addresses, the one that you started remember. Now are you going to show us where John 1:1 states that the word was created or are you going to admit that you are wrong about this particular verse, and that you are misleading people?

Please understand that LOGOS is translated as WORD, in most places. Jesus is also the WORD of God. It is too complicated t explain, for me, anyhow.

Because in the ancient Hebrew the word GOD in that scripture is plural showing that in the beginning there were three that bore witness to creation, The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. So these 3 are the GOD head or the GOD family and The Father is the Most High GOD whom we worship. They are not three of the same person, but are three separate entities in perfect harmony. All life and substance comes from The Father.

Its the best translation at the time - and it's still a great translation showing a clear understanding of the origin and context.

Like Westcott and Hort, a century later, Harwood was seen as a visionary, but in truth, all three are heretics. God gave us a litmus test for heretics in Acts 17:1-12. Test the scriptures against the scriptures themselves. God does not change, and neither does His Word (Psalm 89:34).

Well, what else would you expect from Harwood, a follower of Socinianism, which is most famous for its nontrinitarian Christology but contains a number of other unorthodox beliefs as well?