I have posted an article that critically interacts with the “Early High Christology Club” for the online journal Bible and Interpretation. I really do believe that the scholarly proponents of this model have made a genuine advance beyond older proposals about how a “high Christology” could only emerge at the end of a lengthy process of development in a non-Jewish milieu and that neglected the Second Temple literary evidence in favour of strained parallels to later or diffuse texts (e.g., the theios aner or “divine man”, the Gnostic redeemer myth). Yet, I have raised some theoretical questions about the rhetoric that sometimes seems to surface that a “high Christology” was the earliest, unanimous, and exclusively-Jewish influenced viewpoint of the Christ congregations. I also make some remarks about the relationship between historical and theological concerns, an issue that is important to me since I currently teach in a Christian confessional context. Larry Hurtado has already added written an extensive response on his blog and Michael Bird has offered a response as well, and the article has received some positive feedback from Daniel O McClellan, Jim West, and others on Facebook. I hope all the parties concerned are anticipating the debate about Markan Christology at this upcoming SBL. Let the conversation continue.