The word κρατήρ, the great mixing vessel in which the wine was mixed with water and from which it was drawn, is not seldom used metaphorically in religious literature. To begin with, it may be useful to quote a few examples showing how the metaphor is used in secular literature. Pindar calls the messenger who brings his ode a sweet krater of loud-sounding songs and Aristophanes calls the sycophant a vessel of evils. Plutarch speaks of a krater, placed in the middle which contains myths and arguments mixed up. In Aeschylus Clytaemestra says of Agamemnon that, since he has filled a krater in the house with so many evils, having returned he has to drink it off himself. Philostratus speaks of krateres set up from which the thirsty ones drew. The metaphorical use of the word comes very near to the concrete facts: a storage vessel in which liquids are mixed and from which they are drawn.

Modern scholars commonly regard the “Letter of Aristeas” as a work typical of Jewish apologetics, aiming at self-defense and propaganda, and directed to the Greeks. Here are some instances illustrating this general view. In 1903 Friedländer wrote that the glorification of Judaism in the Letter was no more than self-defense, though “the book does not mention the antagonists of Judaism by name, nor does it admit that its intention is to refute direct attacks.” Stein sees in the Letter “a special kind of defense which practices diplomatic tactics,” and Tramontano also speaks of “an apologetic and propagandist tendency.” Vincent characterizes it as “a small apologetic novel written for the Egyptians” (i.e. the Greeks in Egypt). Pfeiffer says: “This fanciful story of the origin of the Septuagint is merely a pretext for defending Judaism against its heathen denigrators, for extolling its nobility and reasonableness, and for striving to convert Greek speaking Gentiles to it.” Schürer classes the Letter with a special kind of literature, “Jewish propaganda in Pagan disguise,” whose works are “directed to the pagan reader, in order to make propaganda for Judaism among the Gentiles.” Andrews, too, believes that the role of a Greek was assumed by Aristeas in order “to strengthen the force of the argument and commend it to non-Jewish readers.” And even Gutman, who rightly recognizes that the Letter sprang “from an inner need of the educated Jew,” sees in it “a strong means for making Jewish propaganda in the Greek world.”

The text of the Ezra-Apocalypse as it has been received in virtually all versions is the work of Christian scribes who must be held responsible not only for the careless manner in which they have transmitted it but also for many readings introduced in it in order to make them conform to teachings expressive of fundamental Christian doctrines. This often involves the changing of the author's words and ideas so as to convey meanings other than those which he, as a loyal Jew, could possibly have given. Reprehensible as such a practice is, it was, nevertheless, indulged in, not infrequently, by pious hands engaged in the copying of sacred texts. The text of the Ezra-Apocalypse was often the victim of such treatment. It is for this reason that even its Syriac version, now existing in only one manuscript, the sole survivor of many that were in circulation, was badly transmitted. This version, perhaps more than any other of the older versions, approaches what the text was in the tongue in which it was originally written. It bears ample evidence of what seems to be faulty editing but which represents, not infrequently, actually also the result of faulty copying. This is true of virtually all other ancient versions of the Ezra-Apocalypse.

The importance of Papyrus Bodmer II, to be designated P66 for textual studies can scarcely be overlooked, even in an age accustomed to startling discoveries in the biblical field. The scholarly world is indebted to Professor Victor Martin for prompt publication, and it is to be hoped that a facsimile will follow.

In 1928 Maurice Goguel declared that Luke 16,16–18 was ʻsans relation organique sensible, and thereby repeated the result of older German research. Now David Daube has been able to show a continuous chain of ideas in this passage and has thus confronted the exegesis with a new situation. Therefore the question of the historical place of the passage becomes urgent once more.