Acts 20:28
What I got from the reading:
1. The author makes note that, while we don’t see the phrase “the church of the Lord” in any other place in either the new testament or the writings of the apostolic fathers, we do see the phrase “the church of God” quite often in both of those.
2. Theou is accepted by scholars as the original because it is the more difficult reading than kuriou.
3. There is a proposition that “His own blood” makes sense as a reading because Acts 20:28 may “transmissionally” be dependent on 1 Thess. 5:9-10 and Ephesians 1:7. (I see what he means in regards to Ephesians because “His blood” is there, but I don’t find anything similar in the 1 Thess. passage.)
I confess that what the author said after this confused me until I did a little more “outside” research.
I understand that there is a theological discussion over whether tou haimatos tou idiou should be read adjectivally (“His own blood”) or substantivally (“blood of His own [possibly Son]). And if we take the reading tou idiou haimatos the adjectival form is more clear. Although according to this author,tou idiou haimatos is not the original reading, but would have been a reason that some scribes kept theou instead of kuriou.
The author does seem to conclude that the original reading included theou and haimatos tou idiou. And I am supposing that this means he supports a reading with both “God” and “blood of His own” because his last sentence is: “If Acts 20:28, therefore, equates Jesus with theos, it must do so on other “non-textual” grounds.” Although I wondered if this meant that Jesus cannot be directly linked to God just because the reading would indicate that God purchased the church with His own blood.
I’m hoping you can shed some more light with your understanding of the reading.