It was W.E. Filmer who challenged the long-accepted date of 4 BCE interpreted by Emil Schürer for the death of Herod the Great, consequently proposing a date of 1 BCE, basing this evidence, in part, on a sixth-century Latin translation of Josephus’s Antiquities of the Jews, which placed the death of Herod’s successor, Philip the Tetrarch, ‘during the twenty-second year of Tiberius’. This is contrary to the original Greek that reads the ‘twentieth year of Tiberius’. This article re-examines the historical evidence for the ‘twenty-second year of Tiberius’ in the Latin Josephus and reaffirms the traditional date of Herod’s death in 4 BCE. It also proposes a solution to the apparent discrepancies between the years of the reign of Herod’s successors in the Jewish War and the Antiquities of the Jews and the dating of Jesus’ birth in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

In the continued search for the ‘original’ text, John 9.38-39a proves to be an addition. Standard text critical practices of external and internal criteria are utilized. External evidence shows the textual absence is widespread and early. Internally, the text represents a marked break from Johannine style. Additionally, a new method of analysis is put forward using form criticism of the healing narratives in John and the Synoptics, which indicates that the text is inconsistent with other New Testament writings. John 9.38a-39 appears to be a later scribal emendation to strengthen literary features of John’s Gospel for liturgical and narratological purposes.

In Bel and the Dragon, Habakkuk is flown in from Judah by an angel to deliver food to Daniel in the lions’ den. This study investigates the use of the Old Testament in Bel 33-39 and the significance of this intertextuality for a firstcentury BCE Jewish audience. Bel 33-39 uses various texts from the Old Testament, resulting in a creative story that summons up an array of images relating primarily to miraculous provision, for the purpose of informing a first-century BCE Jewish audience that God was with them and that a time of restoration was forthcoming.

This study explores the principal evidence of epigraphy in order to probe into the background of 1 Cor. 11.2-16. The particular focus of this paper is to investigate the two key inscriptions found at Andania and Lycosura. From these inscriptions, an examination is made regarding the twin issues of a married woman’s head coverings and female hairstyles. A provisional conclusion is reached that the two inscriptions may indeed throw light on why Paul can mention both the ‘veil’ (vv. 4-7, 13) and the ‘long hair’ (vv. 14-15) in 1 Corinthians. The conclusion is that the text’s inclusion of both veils and long hair is neither mutually exclusive nor contradictory. Given the cultural realities of the time, a reference to both makes logical sense and is appropriate.

This article utilizes Social Identity Theory and Social Memory Theory in an attempt to further describe the nature and character of the Letter of Aristeas’s strategy for engaging its Alexandrian Diaspora cultural setting. It argues that Aristeas is best understood as an attempt to chart a middle course between maintaining a distinct Jewish identity on the one hand, and total assimilation to Hellenistic culture on the other, by advocating participation and integration. Aristeas’s treatment of social categorizations, collective memory and appropriation of Alexandrian institutions and civic symbols in the translation narrative serve to further this agenda.

The adequacy of the grammatical category ‘the distributive singular’ in Paul’s authentic letters has not been properly explored in previous scholarship. Many scholars ignore or provide limited analysis of a particular construct in which a singular noun is combined with a plural possessive pronoun. For those who attempt to explain this abnormal combination, the noun is usually interpreted as a distributive singular noun. This study demonstrates that this combination can be explained by other grammatical categories instead of the distributive singular. Specific focus is placed on Paul’s anthropological terms in this construct, showing that some terms illustrate the corporate and social dimensions of a community.

Analysis of the use of the Old Testament in the Synoptic Gospels helps one examine the proposed theories of the Synoptic Problem. The method of investigating the scriptural quotations and allusions in the Gospels is similar to that of the Synoptic Problem in that it naturally turns one’s attention to earlier sources and traditions and their connection with the Gospel texts. In this article, Francis Watson’s ‘L/M Theory’ is evaluated through the examination of Matthew’s and Luke’s uses of the Old Testament, and it is argued that Watson’s suggestion is unconvincing and undermines the significance of the distinctive exegetical features and literary strategies of the two infancy narratives.

This paper examines recent input by both Mark Nanos and Brian Rosner on the issue of Paul and the law. It highlights what it believes to be two crucial, but mutually exclusive, insights from each of the two positions. Nanos’s input is that Paul positively approves of the law because he did not find anything inherently wrong with either Judaism or the Jewish way of life, including Torah observance. Rosner’s input is that Paul’s negative assessment of the law is related to legalism. Because these positions are entrenched due to divergent views on Judaism, this study advances the conversation in the debate by offering an insight from contemporary legal theory that makes it possible to bring together the best insights of Rosner and Nanos on this issue. It outlines the difference between statutory and common-law legal systems, with reference to a study by Joshua Berman. It also demonstrates the impact of a common-law view on Pauline paraenesis on Christian ethics.

In a recent JGRChJ article (vol. 10.1, 2014), Craig Keener addresses the neglected topic of the military in early Christian literature, attempting to rehabilitate the historicity of the centurion Cornelius story (Acts 10.1–11.18). The present article responds to Keener and suggests that there is still reason to doubt the historicity of the stories in Acts with regard to military matters. This article focuses upon a different military unit in Acts—the ‘Augustan cohort’ (27.1). It argues that Acts does not refer to any known military unit, but simply chooses a name suitable for the author’s theological interests.