It is all about exegesis. It also touches on variations in Biblical manuscripst and refers to the most ancient texts extant to show that the Bible did not originally declare that Christ was God himself. Very insightful. I had hoped that Bart's book would be more along the lines of exegesis, but he tends to take more of an historian approach.
I have Misquoting Jesus, which talks more about what may not be true than what is true. He does mention that several "proof" texts have obviously been inserted by persons anxious to "protect" the rest of us from "heretical" beliefs. I also have When Jesus Became God, which describes the historical and political events surrounding the adoption of trinitarian doctrine as the official doctrine of the church. Neither book handles biblical exegesis specifically in light of estabishing the doctrine. Frankly, I do not know of any unambiguous texts to support the doctrine. Does Komoszewski go into this more thoroughly?
I must confess I find some of the modern theological exigetical assumptions, such as Ehrman's, rather narrow: for instance, assuming that differences in biblical accounts are always contradictions and never parts of a narration combining to make a whole while emphasizing what different people need to hear and know.
I find it somewhat unfair of Ehrman to go on and on about the textual variants and then mention only in passing that most variants do not affect the meanings in any significant way. Is Komoszewski more balanced in his approach, or is he bent on fulfilling his agenda rather than on elucidating the text?