There is nothing anywhere in those long quotations where Hart advocates for the traditional rendering “the Word was God” as you claimed. It’s as if you think if you use enough words the point will get lost.
Hart’s statement on the translation of John 1:1 in his book Atheist Delusions was as follows:
"As a general rule, the 'articular' form ho Theos—literally, 'the God'—was a title reserved for God Most High or God the Father, while only the 'inarticular' form theos was used to designate this secondary divinity. This distinction, in fact, was preserved in the prologue to John, whose first verse could justly be translated as: 'In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was a god.'"
Hart is opposed to using the adjective “divine”, and he is open to either “god” or “a god” (compare also his translation of John 10.33). In his own translation of John 1.1 he opted for “the Logos was god”. Before you focus on the word “could” in the above quotation, as you inevitably will, in another attempt to distort what he said, it’s notable that he nowhere says that the verse “could justly” be translated “the Word was God”, much less that it is to be preferred. He nowhere:
affirms that the grammatical and theological context of John 1:1 supports the traditional rendering, “the Word was God.”
as you earlier claimed. In fact he wrote, translated, and now interviewed arguing the opposite of that. It’s pure mischief to claim he meant the opposite of what he wrote, translated, and said, just because you find it inconvenient.