The objection
Some particularly clear designations of Jesus as God depend on disputed readings. If these passages are read differently, does the biblical basis of his deity not collapse?
1. Three passages—three different questions
Textual criticism asks about transmitted wording; translation asks about its meaning. The two must not be mixed. Nor is every variant a deliberate theological falsification. Copying habits, similar letters and explanatory adaptations can produce different readings.
Our criterion is the best-justified text. We do not automatically choose for every verse the reading most easily used in a debate.
2. 1. Timothy 3,16 remains a witness to Christ
Part of the tradition here has “God was manifested in flesh,” other witnesses a relative pronoun: “who was manifested in flesh.” The early evidence and explanation of the other forms' emergence support the pronoun; critical editions follow it.[1]
This may remove the explicit word “God” at this point, but not the statement about Christ's manifestation, proclamation and exaltation. The verse should then not be quoted as an undisputed direct address as God. The witness to his incarnation remains within the entire New Testament's context.
3. Acts 20,28 contains two levels
Alongside the readings “church of God” and “church of the Lord” stands the question of how the expression about own blood is to be understood. It can be construed as “his own blood” or “the blood of his Own,” namely the Son.[2]
The first interpretation can be meaningfully explained Christologically: Through incarnation, the Son's divine person possesses truly human blood. This does not make divine nature bodily. The second interpretation designates God's acquiring the church through his Son. The passage must therefore not be presented without explanation as unambiguous in only one sense.
4. Jude 5 contradicts suspicion of one-sided weakening
The reading “Jesus” as Israel's Savior from Egypt has weighty early evidence and stands in the text of NA28. A text-critical decision can therefore lead precisely to a particularly high statement about Christ.[3]
The evidence does not fit the blanket narrative that modern textual criticism fundamentally removes Jesus' deity. Above all, John 20,28, the creation statements and Colossians 2,9 do not depend on these three decisions. The doctrine stands on a coherent witness. Care with disputed passages makes this witness clearer, not weaker.
Biblical texts in context
Sources and further study
- NET Bible, 1. Timothy 3,16Text-critical note on “God” and “who.”
- NET Bible, Acts 20,28Readings “God's/the Lord's” and the translation question “his own blood/blood of his Own.”
- NET Bible, Jude 5Text-critical note on the reading “Jesus” adopted in NA28.