The first essay, appearing in JBL in December (I think), is "The Oddity of the Reference to Jesus in Acts 4:13b." As the title suggests, the main argument is that Luke's association of Jesus strongly with the manual labor class and illiterate status of the apostles in Acts 4:13 is odd because, in his Gospel, Luke ("Luke") has worked consistently to align Jesus with the scribal-literate class of interpreters. It's an extension of an argument I previously pursued in Jesus' Literacy. If you liked that, you will probably like this. If you hated that, you will probably hate this.
The second essay, appearing in CBQ next year, is "The Competitive Textualization of the Jesus Tradition in John 20:30-31 and 21:24-25." In this essay, I argue that the Johannine "colophons" of John 20:30-31 and 21:24-25 support the argument that the author (or authors) of John's Gospel was (or were) aware of one or more of the Synoptic Gospels. These passages don't prove that theory, but, so I argue, they show that John's Gospel is participating in a competitive textualization of the Jesus tradition, trying to best prior textualized Jesus books in a manner not unlike Luke 1:1-4. This raises the question of what prior textualized Jesus traditions the author could have known and, in my opinion, though they are not the only options, the Synoptics are by far the most likely candidates.