Fathers Give Good Gifts Simile

Matt. 7:9-11; Luke 11:11-13

(Huck 38, 148; Aland 70, 187; Crook 53, 212)^[63]

Revised: 6 February 2023

וּמִי בָּכֶם אָדָם שֶׁיִּשְׁאַל בְּנוֹ לֶחֶם וְאֶבֶן יִתֵּן לוֹ אוֹ שֶׁיִּשְׁאַל דָּג וְנָחָשׁ יִתֵּן לוֹ אוֹ שֶׁיִּשְׁאַל בֵּיצָה וְעַקְרָב יִתֵּן לוֹ לְפִיכָךְ אִם אַתֶּם שֶׁרָעִים יְדַעְתֶּם לִיתֵּן מַתָּנוֹת טוֹבוֹת לְיַלְדֵיכֶם עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה אֲבִיכֶם שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם שֶׁיִּתֵּן [מַתָּנוֹת] טוֹבוֹת לַשּׁוֹאֲלִים מִמֶּנּוּ

“Now what father is there among you who, when his son asks for bread, would give him a rock instead? Or if he asks for a fish, would give him a snake instead? Or if he asks for an egg, would give him a scorpion? Not a single one of you! So if even you, with your inclination to do evil, still instinctually give good gifts to your children, how much more do you think your heavenly Father will give good gifts to his children when they ask him?”^[64]

Reconstruction

To view the reconstructed text of the Fathers Give Good Gifts simile, click on the link below:

---

Click here to return to The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction main page. _______________________________________________________

---

• ^[1] See Friend in Need, under the subheading “Story Placement.” ↩
• ^[2] See Lord’s Prayer, under the subheading “Conjectured Stages of Transmission.” ↩
• ^[3] See Persistent Widow, under the subheading “Story Placement.” ↩
• ^[4] On the rigorous demands of full-time discipleship, see Not Everyone Can Be Yeshua’s Disciple, Comment to L9-11; Demands of Discipleship, Comment to L32. ↩
• ^[5] See Lord’s Prayer, Comment to L17. ↩
• ^[6] Cf. Harnack, 10; Ronald A. Piper, “Matthew 7:7-11 par. Luke 11:9-13: Evidence of Design and Argument in the Collection of Jesus’ Sayings,” in The Shape of Q: Signal Essays on the Sayings Gospel (ed. John S. Kloppenborg; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 131-137, esp. 134. ↩
• ^[7] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1384-1404. ↩
• ^[8] See Dos Santos, 27. ↩
• ^[9] The pairing of snakes and scorpions occurs in Luke 10:19, on which, see Return of the Twelve, Comment to L20. ↩
• ^[10] A few scholars suggest that the differences between Matt. 7:9-10 and Luke 11:11-12 are due to different recensions of their pre-synoptic source. See McNeile, 92; Luz, 1:357. Scholars who regard all three scenarios as stemming from the Lukan-Matthean pre-synpotic source include T. W. Manson, 81; Beare, Earliest, 163 §148; C. Leslie Mitton, “Threefoldness in the Teaching of Jesus,” Expository Times 75.8 (1964): 228-230. ↩
• ^[11] Cf., e.g., Davies-Allison, 1:681-682; Nolland, Matt., 327. ↩
• ^[12] It is also possible to reconstruct ἄρτος (artos, “bread”) as כִּכַּר לֶחֶם (kikar leḥem, “loaf of bread”), as in Friend in Need, L5. Adopting כִּכַּר לֶחֶם here in L4 of Fathers Give Good Gifts would provide another direct connection with the vocabulary of Friend in Need, but לֶחֶם by itself is perfectly suitable in the context of Fathers Give Good Gifts. ↩
• ^[13] See Bundy, 120; Bovon, 1:106. On the diet of first-century Jewish peasants in Israel, see Magen Broshi, “The Diet of Palestine in the Roman Period—Introductory Notes,” Israel Museum Journal 5 (1986): 41-56. According to Safrai, “The meal of an ordinary person would have consisted of bread with a vinegar and/or olive oil dip in the morning, and bread with lentil soup and an egg or some other substitute in the evening.” See Ze’ev Safrai, “Agriculture and Farming” (OHJDL, 246-263, quotation on 252). Bread and fish were the two foodstuffs involved in Jesus’ miraculous feeding of the crowds. ↩
• ^[14] See Metzger, 157. ↩
• ^[15] Cf. Plummer, Luke, 300. ↩
• ^[16] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:876-878. ↩
• ^[17] See Dos Santos, 2. ↩
• ^[18] On the בֵּן/אֶבֶן wordplay in Matt. 3:9 // Luke 3:8, see Daniel R. Schwartz, “On the Jewish Background of Christianity,” in Studies in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity: Text and Context (ed. Dan Jaffé; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 87-105, esp. 100. ↩
• ^[19] On the בֵּן/אֶבֶן wordplay in the parable of the Wicked Tenants, see Randall Buth and Brian Kvasnica, “Critical Notes on the VTS” (JS1, 299-300). ↩
• ^[20] The parallels to Jesus’ rock-for-bread saying that are often adduced are weak (Prov. 20:17; Seneca, On Benefits 2:7 §1; on which, see below). It is tempting to suppose that the Gospels reflect an otherwise lost midrash on the character of God based on a father’s provision of bread rather than rocks for food. In the two instances where the bread-for-rocks comparison is made (Temptation Narrative, Fathers Give Good Gifts), the issue at stake is a father-son relationship with God; in Matt. 4:3 // Luke 4:3 Satan says, “If you are the Son of God, tell these rocks to become bread.”

  What might the basis of this conjectured midrash have been? One possibility is a passage from the Psalms that reflects on the manna in the wilderness story, where we read:

  לֶחֶם אַבִּירִים אָכַל אִישׁ צֵידָה שָׁלַח לָהֶם לָשׂבַע

  The bread of the mighty ones a man ate, provision he sent to them for satiety. (Ps. 78:25)

  Perhaps instead of reading אַבִּירִים (’abirim, “mighty ones”) a midrashist read אֲבָנִים (’^avānim, “rocks”), yielding “bread of rocks a man ate.” Such an interpretation, if it existed, would readily fit the Temptation Narrative, for we could imagine Satan saying, “If you are the Son of God, tell these rocks to become bread, as it is written, Bread of rocks a man ate.” To which Jesus replied, “It is written, Man does not live by bread alone.” In that case, both Satan’s suggestion and Jesus’ response would have quoted verses having to do with the manna from heaven story. We can even imagine that Satan’s (mis)quotation of Ps. 78:25 was dropped because a translator or editor was unable to identify the (mis)quoted verse. That similar substitutions were read into Ps. 78:25 is proven by the following rabbinic source:

  תנו רבנן לחם אבירים אכל איש לחם שמלאכי השרת אוכלין אותו דברי רבי עקיבא וכשנאמרו דברים לפני רבי ישמעאל אמר להם צאו ואמרו לו לעקיבא עקיבא טעית וכי מלאכי השרת אוכלין לחם והלא כבר נאמר לחם לא אכלתי ומים לא שתיתי אלא מה אני מקיים אבירים לחם שנבלע במאתים וארבעים ושמונה אברים

  Our rabbis taught [in a baraita]: The bread of the mighty ones [אבירים] a man ate [Ps. 78:25]. They ate the same bread that the ministering angels eat—the words of Rabbi Akiva. And when these words were told to Rabbi Ishmael, he said to them, “Go and say to Akiva: Akiva, you are in error! Do the ministering angels really eat bread? And is it not already stated, Bread I did not eat and water I did not drink [Deut. 9:18]? How then do I interpret אבירים [’abirim]? It refers to bread that was absorbed by the two hundred forty-eight אברים [’ēvārim, 'body parts'].” (b. Yom. 75b; cf. Mechilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Vayassa‘ chpt. 4 [ed. Lauterbach, 1:241]; Num. Rab. 7:4)

  The weakness of the suggestion that Satan (mis)quoted Ps. 78:25 in the Temptation Narrative is that it does not explain the father-son dynamic behind the bread-for-rock substitution.

  The parallels to Jesus’ rock-for-bread saying that are typically cited are:

  עָרֵב לָאִישׁ לֶחֶם שָׁקֶר וְאַחַר יִמָּלֵא פִיהוּ חָצָץ

  Sweet for a man is the bread of falsehood, but afterward his mouth will be filled with gravel. (Prov. 20:17)

  Fabius Verrucosus beneficium ab homine duro aspere datum panem lapidosum vocabat, quem esurienti accipere necessarium sit, esse acerbum.

  Fabius Verrucosus used to say that a benefit rudely given by a hard-hearted man is like a loaf of gritty bread, which a starving man needs must accept, but which is bitter to eat. (Seneca, On Benefits 2:7 §1; Loeb)

  Both of these proposed parallels allude to the liability of crunching on small bits of grit embedded in a loaf of bread due to poorly sifted flour (ground in stone mills), from which the bread was baked. They have nothing to do with handing someone a rock instead of a loaf of bread. ↩

• ^[21] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:519. ↩
• ^[22] See Black, 234-235. ↩
• ^[23] See Jastrow, 643. ↩
• ^[24] See Black, 235. ↩
• ^[25] See LSJ, “χαλκίς,” 1973. ↩
• ^[26] The hypothesis that a Semitic sayings source read, "Or he will ask for a fish, and he will give him a sardine," is also problematic when we consider that a sardine is indeed a type of fish, although a small one. Thus, this scenario would not be as drastic as the rock-for-bread or the scorpion-for-egg scenarios. The hypothetical sardine-for-fish scenario does not fit the overall context of a father who gives his hungry son completely inedible objects. ↩
• ^[27] See Black, 235. ↩
• ^[28] See Knox (2:30 n. 3), who traces the proverb from Zenobius to Byzantine authors. ↩
• ^[29] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:696. ↩
• ^[30] Examples of דָּג paired with בֵּיצָה include:

  מוֹדִים בְּדָג וּבְבֵיצָה שֶׁעָלָיו שֶׁהֶן שְׁנֵי תַבְשִׁילִין

  They [i.e., Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel—DNB and JNT] concur that fish with egg on it ought to be considered two dishes. (m. Betz. 2:1)

  אמ′ ר′ שמעון בן לעזר מודים בית שמיי ובית הלל שהן שני תבשילין על מה נחלקו על הדג והביצה שעליו שבית שמיי או′ תבשיל אחד ובית הלל או′ שני תבשילין מודים שאם בישל שני מינין בקדירה או שפירפר ביצה על גבי הדג או שחתך קפלוט תחת הדג שהן שני תבשילין

  Rabbi Shimon ben Lazar said, “Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel concur that they are two dishes. Over what did they disagree? Over the case of a fish that has egg on it: for Beit Shammai says they are a single dish, while Beit Hillel says they are two dishes. They concur that if one cooked two species in one pot, or crumbles a [hard-boiled] egg over fish, or slices a leek under a fish, that these are two dishes." (t. Betz. 2:4; Vienna MS)

  ↩

• ^[31] See above, Comment to L5. ↩
• ^[32] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1042. ↩
• ^[33] The prohibition against feeding a fellow Israelite forbidden food is assumed in the following statement:

  רבי יצחק אומר אינו צריך מה אם שרצים קלים עשה בהם המאכיל כאוכל חמץ החומר אינו דין שנעשה בו את המאכיל כאוכל

  Rabbi Yitzhak says, “It is not necessary, for if in the case of swarming things, which is a lesser matter, it treats the one who causes others to eat in the same manner as the one who eats, so in the case of leaven, which is a greater matter, will it not treat the one who causes others to eat the same as the one who eats?” (Mechilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Pisḥa chpt. 16 [ed. Lauterbach, 1:94-95])

  ↩

• ^[34] In LXX ᾠόν occurs in Deut. 22:6 (2xx); Job 39:14; Isa. 10:14; 59:5 (2xx). ↩
• ^[35] See Herbert Pegg, “‘A Scorpion for an Egg’ (Luke xi. 12),” Expository Times 38.10 (1927): 468-469. ↩
• ^[36] On sentences opening with לְפִיכָךְ, see Segal, 243 §517. ↩
• ^[37] In the Mishnah לְפִיכָךְ אִם is found in m. Ter. 6:6; m. Maas. 2:1 (2xx); m. Eruv. 6:7; m. Pes. 8:7; m. Git. 6:1, 3, 7; 9:5; m. Bab. Metz. 2:7 (2xx); m. Bab. Bat. 1:1, 2 (2xx); m. Mak. 1:9; m. Zev. 4:1, 2; m. Hul. 5:4; m. Bech. 8:8; m. Meil. 6:5 (3xx). ↩
• ^[38] See Harnack, 9; Hawkins, 23; Marshall, 469; Fitzmyer, 2:914. ↩
• ^[39] Safrai noted that there is a baraita in b. Eruv. 13b according to which the members of Beit Shammai opined that it would have been better had humankind not been created, but Safrai also questioned the accuracy of this report, since in other sources Beit Shammai expressed an optimistic view of humankind. See Shmuel Safrai, “Oral Torah,” in The Literature of the Sages (ed. Shmuel Safrai; 2 vols.; CRINT II.3; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 1:35-119, esp. 112-113. In rabbinic sources, opposition to the creation of humankind is found on the lips of the ministering angels, but God overrules their opinion, from which we learn that the sages generally believed that the creation of human beings was for the best. On the angelic opposition to the creation of humankind, see Ginzberg, 1:51-53. ↩
• ^[40] On the pessimistic evaluation of human nature in DSS, see David Flusser, “The Dead Sea Sect and its Worldview” (JSTP1, 1-24, esp. 19-21); idem, “Myth of the Pagan Origins of Christianity,” under the subheading “The Dead Sea Sect and Christian Anthropology.” ↩
• ^[41] On לִיתֵּן as the MH equivalent of BH לָתֵּת, see Segal, 78 §169; Kutscher, 126 §210. ↩
• ^[42] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:341. ↩
• ^[43] See Dos Santos, 125. ↩
• ^[44] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:2-4. ↩
• ^[45] See Dos Santos, 73. ↩
• ^[46] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1340-1342. ↩
• ^[47] In LXX τέκνον is the translation of יֶלֶד in Gen. 33:6, 7; 2 Esd. 22:43; Hos. 1:2; Isa. 2:6; 29:23; 57:4, 5. ↩
• ^[48] The noun יֶלֶד occurs 11xx in the Mishnah: m. Suk. 5:2; m. Ket. 12:3; m. Bab. Kam. 5:4 (2xx); m. Avot 3:10; 4:20; m. Arach. 4:4 (3xx); m. Mik. 8:4; m. Yad. 3:1. ↩
• ^[49] An example where קַל וָחוֹמֶר clearly refers to the type of argumentation, but where עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה is used in the argument itself, is found in the Tosefta:

  והלא דברים קל וחומר ומה אם בשעת כעסן של צדיקים מרחמין עליהם, בשעת הרחמים על אחת כמה וכמה

  And is it not a matter of kal vahomer [קל וחומר]? If in the hour of anger against the righteous they [i.e., the righteous] are shown mercy, then in the hour of mercy, how much more so [על אחת כמה וכמה]? (t. Ber. 4:16; Vienna MS)

  Additional examples will be cited below.

  On the use of kal vahomer arguments in the teachings of Jesus and in rabbinic literature, see David N. Bivin, “The ‘How Much More’ Rabbinic Principle of Interpretation in the Teaching of Jesus.” ↩

• ^[50] On the textual variants in Luke 11:13, see Fitzmyer, 2:915. ↩
• ^[51] Scholars who preferred this reading include McNeile (92) and T. W. Manson (82), who cited James 1:17 in support of this interpretation. ↩
• ^[52] On the probable relationship of the petition for daily bread to the manna from heaven story, see Lord’s Prayer, Comment to L17. ↩
• ^[53] The notion that the manna came from God’s treasure chest stems from a verse that states, “The LORD will open his good treasure for you: the heavens...” (Deut. 28:12). The sages linked Exod. 16:4 with Deut. 28:12 because of their common vocabulary; both verses speak about rain (מ-ט-ר) from heaven. ↩
• ^[54] The only examples in the Synoptic Gospels of God being referred to as “the Father” are in Matt. 24:36 // Mark 13:32; Matt. 28:19; and Luke 9:26.
  • “The Father” in Matt. 24:36 was copied from Mark 13:32, where “the Father” is probably due to Mark’s editorial activity.
  • “The Father” in Matt. 28:19 occurs in the trinitarian baptism formula which is unique to Matthew and probably secondary.
  • “The Father” in Luke 9:26 comes from FR’s version of a Lukan doublet that also occurs in Luke 12:9 // Matt. 10:33. The Matthean parallel (from Anth.) has “my Father” where Luke 9:26 has “the Father.”

  The “no one knows the Father” saying in Matt. 11:27 // Luke 10:22 is not a true example of Jesus referring to God as “the Father,” since it is likely that Jesus was making a general statement about fathers and sons that was also applicable to his own unique relationship to God. For this interpretation of Matt. 11:27 // Luke 10:22, see Jeremias, Prayers, 47; Marshall, 436; Lindsey, JRL, 21-22. ↩

• ^[55] On Greek editors dropping possessive pronouns, see Lord’s Prayer, Comments to L5 and L10. ↩
• ^[56] For a discussion of this variant, see J. Lionel North, “Praying for a Good Spirit: Text, Context and Meaning of Luke 11.13,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 28.2 (2005): 167-188. As North notes, the phrase “good spirit” also occurs, among other places, in the book of Nehemiah, where we read:

  And you in your great mercy did not abandon them in the wilderness. The pillar of cloud you did not turn aside from them by day, to lead them in the way, or the pillar of fire by night to give light to them and to the way in which they walked. But your good spirit [MT: רוּחֲךָ הַטּוֹבָה; LXX: τὸ πνεῦμά σου τὸ ἀγαθόν] you gave to them to make them understand, and your manna you did not withhold from their mouths, but you gave water to them for their thirst. (Neh. 9:19-20 [= 2 Esd. 19:19-20; LXX])

  The mention of “your good spirit,” which could easily be identified as the Holy Spirit, in connection with the pillar of cloud, the manna and the water in the above passage is of interest when we recall that some rabbinic traditions (cited above, Comment to L13) identified the manna, the well and the pillar of cloud as the three “good gifts” God gave to Israel (Seder Olam, chpt. 10 [ed. Guggenheimer, 102]), while others identified God’s “good gift” as the Holy Spirit (Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer, chpt. 3 [ed. Horowitz, 27]). Although some scholars assume that the author of Luke changed “good gifts” to “Holy Spirit” on account of his personal interest in the gift of the Holy Spirit, it may well be that in Luke 11:13 the author of Luke tapped into an ancient Jewish-Christian tradition that numbered the Holy Spirit among the “good gifts” referred to in the Fathers Give Good Gifts simile.

  Rodd challenged the view that the author of Luke habitually added references to the Holy Spirit to his Gospel by pointing out that, with the exception of the infancy narratives where the Holy Spirit is mentioned quite frequently, the Gospel of Luke has no more references to the Holy Spirit than Matthew. See C. S. Rodd, “Spirit or Finger,” Expository Times 72.5 (1961): 157-158. ↩

• ^[57] See David R. Catchpole, “Q and ‘The Friend at Midnight’ (Luke XI.5-8/9),” Journal of Theological Studies 34.2 (1983): 407-424, esp. 414. Piper’s observation is also important: “In the absence of any other interpretive clues for ἀγαθά one seems compelled to allow at least for the meeting of physical needs in this promise. Indeed if one has here only a vague promise of ‘spiritual blessing,’ it would hardly have required the extensive and persuasive argument which has been presented. The impression is that the persuasion is employed to counter doubts about very real problems of need facing followers” (Piper, “Matthew 7:7-11 par. Luke 11:9-13,” 135). ↩
• ^[58] Compare Matthew’s ἀγαθά (Matt. 7:11; L19) to the following passage in the writings of Philo:

  καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ μάννα οὖν καὶ ἐπὶ πάσης δωρεᾶς, ἣν ὁ θεὸς δωρεῖται τῷ γένει ἡμῶν, καλὸν τὸ ἐνάριθμον καὶ μεμετρημένον καὶ μὴ τὸ ὑπὲρ ἡμᾶς λαμβάνειν· πλεονεξίας γὰρ τοῦτό γε. τὸ τῆς ἡμέρας οὖν εἰς ἡμέραν συναγαγέτω ἡ ψυχή, ἵνα μὴ ἑαυτὴν φύλακα τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἀλλὰ τὸν φιλόδωρον θεὸν ἀποφήνῃ

  Both in the case of manna then, and in the case of every boon which God confers upon our race, it is good to take what is fixed by strict measure and reckoning and not that which is above and beyond us; for to do this is to be over-reaching. Let the soul, then, gather the day’s portion for a day (Exod. xvi. 4), that it may declare not itself but the bountiful God guardian of all good things [τῶν ἀγαθῶν]. (Leg. 3:166; Loeb)

  ↩

• ^[59]

  Fathers Give Good Gifts simile
  Luke’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  τίνα δὲ ἐξ ὑμῶν αἰτήσει τὸν πατέρα ὁ υἱὸς ἰχθύν καὶ ἀντὶ ἰχθύος ὄφιν αὐτῷ ἐπιδώσει ἢ καὶ αἰτήσει ᾠόν ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ σκορπίον εἰ οὖν ὑμεῖς πονηροὶ ὑπάρχοντες οἴδατε δόματα ἀγαθὰ διδόναι τοῖς τέκνοις ὑμῶν πόσῳ μᾶλλον ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ δώσει πνεῦμα ἅγιον τοῖς αἰτοῦσιν αὐτόν		ἢ τίς ἐξ ὑμῶν ἄνθρωπος ὃν αἰτήσει ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ἄρτον καὶ λίθον ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ ἢ καὶ αἰτήσει ἰχθὺν καὶ ὄφιν ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ ἢ καὶ αἰτήσει ᾠόν καὶ σκορπίον ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ εἰ οὖν ὑμεῖς πονηροὶ ὄντες οἴδατε δόματα ἀγαθὰ διδόναι τοῖς τέκνοις ὑμῶν πόσῳ μᾶλλον ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς δώσει [δόματα] ἀγαθὰ τοῖς αἰτοῦσιν αὐτόν
  Total Words:	48	Total Words:	57 [58]
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	35	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	35
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	72.92%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Luke:	61.40 [60.34]%

  ↩

• ^[60] Note that Martin (Syntax 1, 92) classified Luke’s version of Fathers Give Good Gifts as a pericope trending toward the “translation Greek” type. ↩
• ^[61]

  Fathers Give Good Gifts simile
  Matthew’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  ἢ τίς ἐξ ὑμῶν ἄνθρωπος ὃν αἰτήσει ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ἄρτον μὴ λίθον ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ ἢ καὶ ἰχθὺν αἰτήσει μὴ ὄφιν ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ εἰ οὖν ὑμεῖς πονηροὶ ὄντες οἴδατε δόματα ἀγαθὰ διδόναι τοῖς τέκνοις ὑμῶν πόσῳ μᾶλλον ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς δώσει ἀγαθὰ τοῖς αἰτοῦσιν αὐτόν		ἢ τίς ἐξ ὑμῶν ἄνθρωπος ὃν αἰτήσει ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ἄρτον καὶ λίθον ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ ἢ καὶ αἰτήσει ἰχθὺν καὶ ὄφιν ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ ἢ καὶ αἰτήσει ᾠόν καὶ σκορπίον ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ εἰ οὖν ὑμεῖς πονηροὶ ὄντες οἴδατε δόματα ἀγαθὰ διδόναι τοῖς τέκνοις ὑμῶν πόσῳ μᾶλλον ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς δώσει [δόματα] ἀγαθὰ τοῖς αἰτοῦσιν αὐτόν
  Total Words:	49	Total Words:	57 [58]
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	47	Total Words Taken Over in Matt:	47
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	95.92%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Matt.:	82.46 [81.03]%

  ↩

• ^[62] Martin (Syntax Criticism of the Synoptic Gospels, 92) classified Matthew’s version of Fathers Give Good Gifts as a pericope of the “translation Greek” type. ↩
• ^[63] For abbreviations and bibliographical references, see “Introduction to ‘The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction.’” ↩
• ^[64] This translation is a dynamic rendition of our reconstruction of the conjectured Hebrew source that stands behind the Greek of the Synoptic Gospels. It is not a translation of the Greek text of a canonical source. ↩