they conclude in this article on the Coptic of John 1:1 by saying that those who view the verse as saying "a god" must explain why the Sahidic Coptic would have contradicted the orthodox understanding of the verse. The understanding of the verse in early Christianity is the very thing that is called into question! And with good reason too, when you have Origen writing subordinationist interpretations of John 1:1 in the same time and place that the Sahidic Coptic itself was translated.
The fact that Origen might have written subordinationist interpretations of John 1:1 in the same time and place is immaterial because much of what the early thinkers thought and wrote was not accepted or ratified by the church, and consequently, those views carry little weight in rejecting the Trinity. They are useful, however, in terms of historical reflection and academic observation of evolving thought processes:
As elemental Trinitarianism of the NT period has to be distinguished carefully from the gradually emerging Trinitarian dogma, so must Trinitarian dogma (doctrine in the strictest sense) be distinguished carefully from Trinitarian theology. The dogma in its preparatory stages had been merely theology: efforts on the part of individuals and schools to interpret and understand revealed mystery. Then, as certain of these efforts became assimilated through authoritative decision into the teaching of the Church, some of what had heretofore been theology was from now on also dogma of faith. But note some; for much else - in Tertullian and Origen, Athanasius and the Cappadocians, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas - would never receive such ratification, never attain such clear-cut status as Christian doctrine. (Catholic Encyclopedia, 302)
Therefore, even if Justin Martyr said the prehuman Jesus was inferior to God, a created angel and is other than God (Should You Believe, Chapter 4), or Irenaeus believed the prehuman Jesus was inferior to and had an existence separate from God who was not his equal, or Clement of Alexandria called Jesus a creature not equal to God, or Tertullian taught that the Father is greater than the son (ibid.), or Hippolytus said that God had nothing of equal age with him - even if those ancients believed all of this, those opinions do not constitute the Trinity doctrine but only deep musings of early theologians. Accordingly, their relevance lies more with showing what the official doctrine does not stand for, not what the Trinity doctrine teaches.