In NTS 63 (2017), Steve Mason and Philip Esler responded to an earlier article of mine by setting out their grounds for a categorical distinction between Judaean ‘ethnic’ identity and Christ-following voluntary association and by rejecting the idea that drawing this contrast could reflect or legitimate modern notions of implicit Christian superiority. In this reply, intended to clarify the issues at stake and the grounds for disagreement, questions are first raised about various aspects of the approach to ethnicity that Mason and Esler adopt, illustrating the main points with brief examples from relevant texts and contemporary scholarship. Specifically, I consider the value of multiple rather than singular categorisations, the idea that ethnicity should be seen as multiple, fluid and hybrid in character, the relationship between ethnicity and religion, and the contrast between real and fictive kinship. Finally, I return to the issue of the ways in which scholarship may reflect its contexts of production and the need to probe this critically, offering specific illustrations of the reasons for my claims. Whether my particular suggestions concerning the implications of the dichotomy between Judaean/Jewish ethnicity and ‘trans-ethnic’ Christian identity are right or wrong, I argue for the importance of critical reflection on the impact of contemporary location on historical reconstruction.

In Jesus’ sermon at Nazareth in Luke (4.16–30), his reminder that Elijah had aided non-Jews (vv. 26–7) is met with an unusual death sentence – to throw Jesus from a cliff. This has been conceptually and geographically vexing for scholars. This paper reads the passage beside the Life of Aesop, in which the Delphians condemn the fabulist to the same fate for blasphemy (130–42). Aesop's offence, like Jesus’, is to malign the special status of the Delphians before their god. The Lukan Evangelist's use of the same manner of death for the same type of speech act indicates that the crowd at Nazareth has condemned Jesus for blasphemy.

Although it is widely recognised that οἱ πιστεύοντες was a self-designation of the early Christ groups, this is not reflected in scholarship on Romans and Galatians, where the participle is usually taken as a generic substantive. Such a rendering obscures the force of Paul's rhetoric, which presupposes the status of οἱ πιστεύοντες as a shared self-designation and mobilises it in an effort to naturalise Paul's claims regarding the exclusive justificatory value of his addressees’ πίστις. Accordingly, in Rom 3.22 and Gal 3.22, where οἱ πιστεύοντες appears in close connection with πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, it is unlikely that the latter phrase designates Christ's own faithfulness.

This article examines Paul's use of scriptural allusion in 1 Cor 11.7–12, highlighting underappreciated echoes of Zerubbabel's discourse in 1 Esdras 4.13–41. Paul puts Genesis 1, Genesis 2 and 1 Esdras 4 into conversation to support what may strike many today as a tension-fraught position. He assumes a patriarchal gender hierarchy (1 Cor 11.7–9) but also affirms woman's ‘authority’ over her head, albeit tendentiously (11.10). Rather than resolving the resulting tension, Paul uses additional, counterbalancing allusions to redirect attention away from the question of status, towards recognition of interdependence ‘in the Lord’ and shared origin in God (11.11–12).

Paul and Timothy are almost inseparable. The letters to Philemon and the Philippians are addressed from both Paul and Timothy and appear to be sent from prison. This makes most sense if both are in prison, especially given the risk inherent in naming an accomplice who remains free. And when Paul is in prison, Timothy is not sent anywhere. Could it be that Timothy was in prison alongside Paul? The personal tone and content of both letters nonetheless reflect concern only for Paul, what he has done and what will happen to him. No one cares about Timothy, so Timothy is probably not in prison.

The human capacity to sin and the location of evil are considered in James in light of ongoing research within the field of Qumran studies. This essay consists of two main parts. First, the association of ‘desire’ in Jas 1.14–15 with the Jewish concept of yēṣer is revisited by drawing upon occurrences of yēṣer from Cave 4 that had previously not been included in the assessment of James. Parallels from, especially, 4QInstruction provide new data suggesting that sapiential tradition may also reflect the apocalyptic view that human evil is provoked by spiritual beings, vis-à-vis an evil yēṣer, which opens up a more nuanced understanding of the self and how ‘desire’ may operate in Jas 1.14–15. Second, after arguing that the human capacity to sin cannot be relegated merely to a negative anthropology, the larger issue of evil beings (i.e. devil, demons) within James’ cosmology is considered. In conclusion, James’ sapiential discourse is seen to be located within a cosmological framework which includes active evil agents who lead human beings astray and cause suffering and death. Human responses to evil in James include petitioning God and asking for wisdom from above.

Codex was by far the most widely attested book form among early Christian literary papyri. Nevertheless, the papyrological record does include several notable exceptions, two of which contain parts of the book of Revelation (18 and 98). Recently, the former's status as a roll has been disputed by Brent Nongbri, who suggested that, instead, 18 is more likely to be a miscellaneous codex. This article provides a fresh look at the extant evidence and critically reviews Nongbri's case. In closing, brief reflections on the manuscript's social setting are offered.

A bilingual Greek–Latin glossary in the papyrus Chester Beatty AC 1499 (= New Testament P99, Vetus Latina AN glo Paul) contains numerous short extracts from the letters of Paul. New photographs and re-examination of the original have allowed substantial corrections to previous editions of the text, causing some rare or unique variant readings to disappear and others to appear for the first time. The history of the glossary can now be better understood: it was probably created not directly from a text of Paul, but from an early Christian work, now lost, that quoted extensively from Paul.