Iskander Robertson said

Adoptionism—the idea that Jesus is portrayed in the Bible as a human figure who was adopted as God’s son at his baptism or resurrection—has been commonly accepted in much recent scholarship as the earliest explanation of Jesus’s divine status. In this book Michael Bird draws that view into question with a thorough examination of pre-Pauline materials, the Gospel of Mark, and patristic sources.

Engaging critically with Bart Ehrman, James Dunn, and other scholars, Bird demonstrates that a full-fledged adoptionist Christology did not emerge until the late second century. As he delves into passages often used to support the idea of an early adoptionist Christology, including Romans 1:3–4 and portions of the speeches in Acts, Bird persuasively argues that early Christology was in fact incarnational, not adoptionist. He concludes by surveying and critiquing notable examples of adoptionism in modern theology.

 

Do most scholars agree with Michael Bird regarding Adoptionism not appearing until the second century?

  

It was a beautiful marketing gimmick. Bart wrote How Jesus Became God and tossed a copy of Bird and company prior to release. They wrote How God Became Jesus. They published both books together. Great action.

Adoptionism is intrinsic to the position of the gospel in early Christianity. These masterpieces, reportedly from the 1st century, were largely ignored until the middle of the 2nd century, however.

The first elevation of the gospel and its giving of authority was due to Marcion and was not widely shared. Justin Martyr called them the diaries of the apostles and didn’t care much about them. Thus, incarnation has a chance to be the dominant concept and primal in relation to adoptionism.