I am all in favour of “orthodoxy”, but I am inclined to think that biblical orthodoxy should take precedence over theological orthodoxy. Or to put it another way, I see no reason why the philosophically informed reading of the New Testament that prevailed in the fourth century should be regarded as a more reliable guide to interpretation than a historically informed reading in the twenty-first century. . . .
I’m afraid I have to disagree with Marv’s conclusion that “the data rather indicates the divinity of Christ is an underlying concept in the gospel of Matthew”. I greatly appreciate the trouble he (and others) have taken to engage with the argument—and their willingness to pursue the debate beyond the entry-requirement of a profession of orthodoxy. But I am strongly of the opinion that if we are going to profess a biblically Trinitarian belief, we have to do so by way of what Matthew and Luke say, rather than by way of what they do not say.
I have to agree with Andrew here. Orthodoxy seems largely to have been a Christian outworking of a specific sort of philosophy (namely, Platonism and its children/relatives). But if we come to find out that a given orthodox affirmation is untenable in the light of historical research, it is up to us to re-shape orthodoxy based on that new knowledge, rather than holding to the old teaching just because it is the old teaching. After all, “all truth is God’s truth,” and if we come to learn that something we’ve believed for centuries actually is untrue, we must do the godly thing and replace that untruth with the truth, even if it proves uncomfortable.