Thanks for the "aside." We'll see if the OP responds.

Just a brief aside, but I'm a little puzzled by the characterization of the scholars in your list.

Per Wikipedia, Dunn "worked broadly within the Methodist tradition and was a member of the Church of Scotland and the Methodist Church of Great Britain during his life." Ramsey, Hebblethwaite, and Moule were all Anglican; none was secular. Brown is still alive and is an Anglican priest.

I would also say that it stands to good reason and logic that if Jesus never claimed to be God, the religious leaders would not have had such a massive issue with Him. He would have been another prophet in the line or a prophetic teacher. If He didn't claim to be God, why oppose Him? And better yet why crucify Him? Sure He opposed some of their methods of teaching, but that wouldn't give them good enough reason for such a terrible and public death. I just don't see a good enough reason unless its a lofty claim like this.

Ridiculous. First of all, that Jesus made no claim to divinity is absurd, and the assertion that there is "broad agreement" among NT scholars is ludicrous. Jesus made many claims to deity:

[list][*] Only God can forgive sins, and I can forgive sins.
[*] Only God can walk on water and heal the blind, and I did both of those.
[*] The seven "I AM" statements in John
[*] The identification of Himself with the Father in many texts in John.
[*] His statement that "Before Abraham was, I am."[/list]

He explicitly and unabashedly claimed deity in John 10.30.

The perpetual denigrating "scholarship" of liberals and minimalists is so false, and yet it's what gets on the first page of Google and, of course, is what is tapped into by atheists, skeptics, and wandering Christians as "proof" of the mythology of the Bible and the misconceptions of the Bible. This quote, of course, is ignoring the large group of evangelical and conservative scholars who are telling a very different story.

We can talk more about Jesus's claims to deity if you want. I've only given a quick overview.

Hello:

I just came across a quotation from a book that I found interesting, and I was hoping that you could comment on it:

[quote]A further point of broad agreement among New Testament scholars ... is that the historical Jesus did not make the claim to deity that later Christian thought was to make for him: he did not understand himself to be God, or God the Son, incarnate. ... such evidence as there is has led the historians of the period to conclude, with an impressive degree of unanimity, that Jesus did not claim to be God incarnate. (Hick, John, [i]The Metaphor of God Incarnate[/i], page 27)[/quote]
Now, this work was published in 1993, so there exists close to 30 more years of scholarship from which we can pull. I find this claim incredulous to believe regarding the impressive degree of unanimity surrounding the non-divine nature of Jesus among New Testament scholars. Within that section of the book, he quotes five scholars on the matter ([u]Archbishop Michael Ramsey[/u], [u]C. F. D. Moule[/u], James Dunn, Brian Hebblethwaite, and [u]David Brown[/u] -- 3/5 of whom are [u]Anglican[/u], while the other two seem secular), and another (Adrian Thatcher) who echoed the sentiment of the above quote.

If these statements are true -- that contemporary scholarship is nearly unanimous in the claim that Jesus neither believe Himself to be divine nor claimed such -- then it is necessary that I follow such evidence. However, if that same scholarship is those who were the textual critics of the New Testament, then I struggle to reconcile the clearly-divine claims made there with the unanimity of the scholars who deny them.