The comparisons (bread with stone and fish with serpent) were used for perhaps two reasons: (1) bread and fish were the foods that would be most common near the Sea of Galilee, and (2) bread is shaped somewhat like a stone, and a fish has scales and other features similar to those of a snake. One commentator in fact notes that a certain species of fish (barbut) even has the appearance of a snake. Though most translations retain the question form of the Greek text, it is obvious that in many languages a statement would be more effective: “No father would give his son a stone when he asks for bread….” This can also be rendered “Surely none of you who is a father would give” or “No father would give his son a stone … would he?”

The sentence in verse 9 may need to be reversed, as in “When a son asks his father for bread, do you think the father would give him a stone?”

All these ways of rendering verse 9 can be used in verse 10 too. In fact, it is probably a good idea to use the same structure.

Bread is widely known, but in areas where it is not, “food” or “something to eat” can be used, or possibly some local food that has a similar function to bread.

A serpent is a snake. The type of snake does not need to be specified. For the passage to be meaningful, it must be understood by the readers that the Jews did not eat snakes. It would be just as unlikely for a Jew to eat a snake as a stone. In areas where people do eat some kinds of snakes, translators can add a footnote saying that Jews were forbidden to eat snakes, or they can use the name of a type of snake that is not eaten. They can even add the phrase “which God forbids us to eat” in the translation itself, if they feel that otherwise the verse will make no sense.

Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Stine, Philip C. A Handbook on the Gospel of Matthew. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1988. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .