Antedating comments htm
23)."The Watchtower article has, by judicious cutting, made me say the opposite of what I meant to say. It is true that Becker renders John 1:1c in German as "ein Gott," and he appears to have done so on the basis of the anarthrous theos.
What I was meaning to say, as you well know, is that Jesus is not the same as God, to put it more crudely, that is of the same stuff as God, that is of the same being as God, but the way the Watchtower has printed my stuff has simply left the conclusion that Jesus is not God in a way that suits themselves. But if one reads his accompanying commentary, it is clear that he does not regard the Logos as "a god" in the way the Watchtower does.
All other things have been created through him and for him. But Becker goes on to say that the Logos deserves to be called "God" due to his divine nature (Gottlicher Art). Thus, Becker does not understand his translation to imply that the Logos was a created being.
Also he is before all other things and by means of him all other things were made to exist. He is a divine Person who is, "at the same time the only Mediator of the one God." And, if one considers his comments in context, Becker does not mean "divine" to mean anything less than eternal and coeval with God: Through this Mediator all things came to be. When Becker says that the Logos has a "divine Nature" and is a "divine Person," he means the Son has the same eternal nature as God.
Even if the claim is true, and Barclay knowingly lied, it is logically fallacious to claim this fact exonerates the WT from twisting its quote from him. This degree requires an intermediate level of competence in Greek.Jn 1:1 is translated : Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god, a translation which is grammatically impossible. Becker bases this view, apparently, on Philo's distinction between ho theos and theos, as do other German scholars of his generation (e.g., Haenchen).