Actually they are Trinitarians, as these professors also allow the term "essence" or properties or nature. But they aren't fanatical about this, as is Wallace and the Trinitarians on this board are. That is, these professors allow the grammar to dictate "no Trinitarian fanaticism here."The same thing applies to you and your scholars they are just as "fully committed (addicted)" to whatever they believe and that does not make it any more correct that any scholar I could quote.
It's funny to see one set of Trinitarians accusing another set of being heretics. Not a good selling point for Trinitarians. Haven't they got better things to do that sit in judgement on each other all the time? This is the question that some here should ask themselves. Do they think they are going to get a reward from God? Methinks not.
I'm not disagreeing with Wallace that "the Word was God." I just don't think he has explained his points adequately, especially in terms of Jn 1:1c denoting the "nature" of the Word by the Word being said to be "fully God," which is redundant when you grasp that Jn 1:1c is talking about identity.Wallace is not the only scholar I could quote.
It must be the same God in Jn 1:1c as in Jn 1:1b, as there is only one God by Deut 6:4. Jn 1:1c is not in the business of positing another God. So the Word is directly (re)presenting the Father's properties and form. This is a critical thing to get across. For Jesus said "I and the Father are One" and "He who has seen me has seen the Father." He didn't say "He who has seen me has seen the Father's essence." If Jesus spoke of identity, then why does Wallace speak of "nature"? I tell you why: because he is an "addled" Trinitarian.
This section below sums up what these professors say about "Colwell's rule" and about Wallace's preference for the qualitative "fully God," with which they disagree, as also do I.
"Colwell's rule that "Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb
usually lack the article... a predicate nominative which precedes the verb
cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because
of the absence of the article...", is formulated problematically, quite apart
from its misinterpretations, which have introduced even more confusion.
For even if we interpret it in the most benevolent fashion, the rule still
opens the way to treating Jn 1,1c as definite, which, as we have seen, it is
not. This is the reason why Wallace has to introduce his "sub-set proposition"
and his "convertible proposition". However, his explanation that
the anarthrous Θεός in Jn 1,1c seems to be definite, because it refers to
the same person (τον Θεόν, Jn 1,1b), is far off the mark (though, imperceptively,
here he comes dangerously close to Modal ism). He is, however,
uncertain about this interpretation, because "the vast majority of definite
anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives are monadic ... or proper
names, none of which is true here". Here we are on the wrong track.
"The interpretation of "interchangeability" confuses the formulated
rule that "the article may be inserted if the predicate noun is supposed
to be a unique or notable instance" with word order, "which means that
it could just as well have read: ό λόγος ην ό θεός". But how can the
word Θεός" be unique, when the word as such in the Greek language
is used of many |ods? And why should the articular predicate be και ό
Λόγος (subject) ην ό Θεός (predicacte) and not και ό Θεός (predicate)
ην ό Λόγος (subject)? Depending on the context and emphasis, in Greek
either form could be correct.
"Most scholars, it would appear, settle for the "qualitative" use of the
predicate. The problem with this explanation is that it opens the way
to substituting the noun Θεός with the adjective θείος'. Since Greek
does have an adjective to express qualitative significance, but does not
use it here, it is obvious that John's meaning cannot be expressed by
θειος. Instead, we need to understand the anarthrous Θεός as was defined
above, of that which distinguishes, demarcates, and defines God from
the various categories of creatures. Thus, it is unnecessary to interpret
Θεός qualitatively, i.e. "what God was the Word was", which is rather
inelegant, or use θείος i.e. "the Word was divine" and then try to produce
safeguards for what we mean by 'divine'."
Click on FILOLOGÍA NEOTESTAMENTARIA tab and go to Vol 21/2008.OBTW I went to your link I could not find an article on John 1;1.