One of the dilemmas historical Jesus/Christian origins scholars face is to explain the rise of high Christology - in other words, the exalted view of Jesus as being divine. After all, Judaism is strictly monotheistic - so just when and how did the early Christians manage to get around that and arrive at the belief that Jesus was divine and equally deserving of the honors due to God, without compromising the belief in only one God?
There are really two camps: on the one side, you have scholars advocating for a late origin of the idea of Jesus being divine (the “late high Christology” camp), and on the other hand, scholars who argue that high Christology erupted fairly early into Christian history (the “early high Christology” camp).
To be honest, the “late high Christology” had more or less predominated the field until fairly recently. To sum, most scholars then simply had a hard time trying to square the belief in Jesus as divine with the Jewish origins of Christianity. Since they thought that the belief in only one God would have prevented the Jewish followers of Jesus from contemplating Him as being equal to God, they usually proposed that high Christology came from a Diaspora context and influenced by pagan, Greco-Roman thinking (where there were no problems in believing in ‘divine men’ and divinized heroes). In other words, a clear divide is made between the ‘Palestinian’ followers of Jesus, who saw Him as a messianic ‘son of man’ figure but not necessarily divine, and the ‘Hellenistic’ Christian communities, who saw Jesus as divine. Some scholars named St. Paul (here believed to have been immersed in Hellenistic/Diaspora Jewish thinking) as the progenitor/developer of high Christology, though others would even deny that Paul exhibited a belief in true high Christology himself (usually going to lengths as interpreting the christological passages in his letters, for example, Philippians 2, as exhibiting a form of ‘not-quite-so-high’ Christology or even saying that they were later interpolations!) and instead propose that it gradually emerged afterwards, well into the second to the fourth centuries.
Scholars who belong(ed) in the late high Christology camp, each having their own distinct theories, include Wilhelm Bousset (who argued in his seminal 1913 work Kyrios Christos that high Christology had its origins in the gentile Christian communities like Antioch, and that Paul picked it up from there), Geza Vermes (who argued for a very late, 4th century origin of true high Christology), Maurice Casey (who pinpointed the origins of high Christology among Johannine Christians in the late 1st-early 2nd century, ascribing the shift to a slackening of commitment to and understanding of the constraints of Jewish monotheism), and James D.G. Dunn (who proposed that Paul was instead exhibiting an ‘Adamic Christology’ in Philippians 2).
More recently, however, there have been a growing body of scholars who proposed the opposite: high Christology could very well have emerged early (from the very first generations of Christians), from a Jewish context: Jewish monotheism might not have been a hurdle in the rise of high Christology as other scholars thought it was. One of the first scholars to propose this was Martin Hengel, who argued for “an explosive development” of high Christology over the first few decades. Soon, other academics picked up on the idea and traced the origins of high Christology in the context of known contemporary Jewish thinking (for example, Jewish messianic/royal traditions, the imagery of the ‘enthroned’ Jesus = the merkavah/chariot imagery in Ezekiel, the idea of Jesus being exalted that He has become a valid co-recipient of the devotion due to God, etc.) Aside from Hengel, scholars in the ‘early high Christology’ camp include Larry Hurtado (Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity), Timo Eskola (Messiah and the Throne), Richard Bauckham, among others.