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."
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.
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.
I have difficulty discerning when it is you speaking and when it someone you are quoting. As for "θεον" and "θεος" John 1:1 both "θεον" and "θεος" are nouns, have always been nouns and will always be nouns. The second occurrence "θεος" may have some qualitative sense but it never becomes an adjective. I think one of your guys said something like that.
Irenaeus [A.D. 30-107.] Against Heresies. Book I. Chap. VIII.[student of John]
5….Since, therefore, he [John] treats of the first origin of things, he rightly proceeds in his teaching from the beginning, that is, from God and the Word. And he expresses himself thus: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; the same was in the beginning with God.” (Joh_1:1, Joh_1:2) Having first of all distinguished these three — God, the Beginning, and the Word — he again unites them, that he may exhibit the production of each of them, that is, of the Son and of the Word, and may at the same time show their union with one another, and with the Father. For “the beginning” is in the Father, and of the Father, while “the Word” is in the beginning, and of the beginning. Very properly, then, did he say, “In the beginning was the Word,” for He was in the Son; “and and the Word was with God,” for He was the beginning; “and and the Word was God,” of course, for that which is begotten of God is God. “The same was in the beginning with God” — this clause discloses the order of production. “All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made;” (Joh_1:3) for and the Word was the author of form and beginning to all the Aeons that came into existence after Him.
Theophilus to Autolycus. [a.d. 115-168-181.] Book II. Chap. XXII
And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,” (Joh_1:1) showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, “The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence.” The Word, then, being God, and being naturally62 produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place.
Tertullian [a.d. 145-220] VII. Against Praxeas. Chap. VII.
Is that Word of God, then, a void and empty thing, which is called the Son, who Himself is designated God? “The Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (Joh_1:1) It is written, “Thou shalt not take God’s name in vain.” (Exo_20:7) This for certain is He “who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” (Phi_2:6) In what form of God? Of course he means in some form, not in none.
Tertullian VII. Against Praxeas. Chap. XXVI.
Nothing which belongs to something else is actually the very same thing as that to which it belongs. Clearly, when anything proceeds from a personal subject,102 and so belongs to him, since it comes from him, it may possibly be such in quality exactly as the personal subject himself is from whom it proceeds, and to whom it belongs. And thus the Spirit is God, and the Word is God, because proceeding from God, but yet is not actually the very same as He from whom He proceeds. Now that which is God of God, although He is an actually existing thing,103 yet He cannot be God Himself104 (exclusively), but so far God as He is of the same substance as God Himself, and as being an actually existing thing, and as a portion of the Whole.