It is almost universally supposed that the narrative chronology of the Fourth Gospel does not turn to Hanukkah until 10.22, but the first explicit reference to ‘the feast of Dedication’ need not represent the point at which the narrative first turns to that feast. This article argues, in turn, for a Hanukkah setting throughout John 10, then throughout chap. 9, and finally throughout chap. 8 (minus vv. 1–11). Thus Jesus' claim to be ‘the light of the world’ (8.12) invokes the symbolism of Hanukkah rather than of Sukkoth.

This study argues in three stages that virtually everything the Book of Acts says about Aquila and Priscilla can be derived or inferred from materials in the Pauline letters or can plausibly be attributed to the author's own literary, theological, and/or apologetic agenda. The argument supports the following propositions: (a) that the author of Acts knew and used at least some of the Pauline letters, (b) that Acts reflects a distinctly anti-feminist bias, (c) that the author's agenda included an anti-Marcionite component, and (d) that Acts is to be dated in the second century and perhaps as late as the middle of the century.

The endings of Pauline letters have been studied as providing clues to the letters' contents. The text of 2 Corinthians is no exception. But what constitutes the ending of that text, and is there more than one letter-ending in it? Rhetorical criticism provides some criteria for attempts to answer those questions, and has sometimes been claimed as providing evidence for the unity of 2 Corinthians. This article reviews that evidence and questions its reliability. The possibility that there may be more than one letter-ending points to a different solution and exposes important features of the text's composition.

This article argues that αρραβων in 2 Corinthians (1.22 and 5.5) does not mean ‘down payment’ or ‘first installment’ but ‘pledge’ without any sense of pars pro toto. After showing that the meaning of the word depends on its context, the study goes on to examine the two occurrences of the word, concluding that Paul either appeals to the Spirit as God's pledge for his apostolicity (1.22) or as a pledge for the surety of bodily resurrection (5.5). The common view that αρραβων depicts the Spirit as the present realization of salvation is thus exegetically unfounded.

Interpreters of Paul's letter to the Philippians continue to struggle to understand the place of Paul's promise to send Timothy (Phil 2.19–24) in the overall rhetoric of the letter. However, if one reads Philippians as a letter of consolation the problems associated with this text can be solved. In particular, it becomes evident that the imprisoned and possibly soon-to-be-executed Paul offers Timothy to his anxious readers as his replacement, as another Paul or alius Paulus, according to the topos ‘consolation by means of a replacement’ for which there are many pertinent ancient parallels. This reading also explains why Paul describes Timothy as his ‘child’ (τεκνον) in the gospel ministry – children were often seen as replacements for dead parents – and why he insists that Timothy is ‘of like soul/mind’ (ισοψυχον) to himself.

In Rev 16.13–14 we encounter minor characters of the book's diabolic bestiary, ‘three unclean spirits like frogs’ that proceed from the mouths of the Dragon and the two Beasts. This article attempts to understand this detail in relation to the metaphorical connotations other ancient Greek and Jewish writers attributed to frogs: they were mostly connected with silliness and loquaciousness. In this context, the picturesque detail of frog-like demons belongs to John's strategy of reassuring his audiences by ridiculing the Dragon and the Beasts and the powers they represent.

‘Agapius of Hierapolis’ and Michael the Syrian's versions of the Testimonium Flavianum, a passage about Jesus from Josephus' Jewish Antiquities, both derive from the Syriac translation of Eusebius of Caesarea's Historia Ecclesiastica. Michael's Testimonium is more authentic than Agapius' Testimonium, and it is more authentic than the textus receptus in reading that Jesus was ‘thought to be the Messiah’. Some features of Agapius' Testimonium previously considered to be more authentic than the textus receptus can be explained by distinctive readings in the Syriac text that Agapius used.