Exegesis:

kai idou ‘and behold’; cf. on v. 20. Here it emphasizes that Mary’s pregnancy is proof that she has found grace with the Lord.

sullēmpse en gastri ‘you will become pregnant’; sullambanō ‘to become pregnant’ occurs with or without en gastri ‘in the womb,’ without difference in meaning. en gastri also 21.23.

kai kaleseis cf. on v. 13.

Iēsoun the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name Jeshua, and of its older form Joshua or Jehoshua, ‘Yahweh saves’ or ‘Yahweh is saviour’; the name was both in its Hebrew and in its Greek form very common among the Jews.

Translation:

The rendering of conceive in your womb often will coincide with that of “conceive” in v. 24, but it is stylistically preferable, of course, when the two can be differentiated, as is done e.g. in Uab Meto, which can use a parallelism here, ‘you will conceive and become pregnant.’

Bear a son, see on v. 13, where a synonymous verb is used in the Greek.

In languages which, in addressing and referring to persons, have to differentiate words in accordance with status, the position Jesus has and the one Mary has in relation to Gabriel, and the ensuing decisions as to the use of honorific and less or non-honorific words may form a problem. To solve it the translator should investigate more or less comparable cases in ordinary life (e.g. in Bali the case of a low caste girl married to a noble-man, a not uncommon and legitimate situation), or in folktales (where heavenly announcements to maidens about supernatural sons are not exceptional). Such a comparison will at least constitute a valid frame of reference for the discussion of the linguistic and cultural problems, and at its best may suggest an acceptable, sometimes quite unexpected, solution. Thus in Balinese the verse is in non-honorifics up to ‘bear a son,’ but the clause “you shall call his name Jesus” is rendered in honorifics. In Thai, which has a highly developed system of honorifics and reckons with different degrees of highness, one has to take into account that Gabriel is speaking for God; this makes it unnecessary and undesirable to refer to the infant Jesus with terms of the highest level, such as would be proper for subjects to use in referring to their king’s son. Whatever solution the translator chooses, however, somewhere it will probably have to be in conflict with normal usage in the receptor language, for the simple reason that the facts to be told do not fit in the normal experience of men. When the message requires it, he must be ready to give theology precedence over linguistics, but in doing so he should exactly know to what extent and at what cost he deviates from usage, lest what he thinks to be a theologically sound rendering turn out to be a nonsensical one.

For versions made in languages of predominantly Muslim countries, ‘Isa,’ the Arabic form of the name, as found already in the Koran, has been advocated (cf. ibid., 83-86). Older versions have used it, some modern ones still do so. It is significant, though, that in course of time ‘Isa’ or a form based on it, has often been changed into (a form based on) ‘Jesus,’ but that examples of the contrary procedure are less conspicuous. At least two objections can validly be made against the use of the Arabic form of the name. (1) The connotation of ‘Isa’ in Islam is very different from that of ‘Jesus’ in Christianity. It goes back to teachings of the Koran containing several statements about ‘Isa,’ which are in open and intentional controversy with the Christian creed: he is held to be simply a prophet, one amongst many colleagues of whom Mohammed is the highest, “the seal”; it is stressed that he was nothing more than a servant, having no divine rights, and certainly not being the Son of God; he is said not to have died on the cross in his own body but in effigy only (cf. Sura 33.7, 40; 43.59; 5.116; 9.30f and 4.157). The name ‘Isa,’ therefore, must be said to stand for the negation of much that ‘Jesus Christ’ means. (2) The choice of ‘Isa’ tends to isolate its users from the rest of the Church, because ‘Jesus,’ or forms based on it, are widely accepted all over the world.

Quoted with permission from Reiling, J. and Swellengrebel, J.L. A Handbook on the Gospel of Luke. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1971. For this and other handbooks for translators see here . Make sure to also consult the Handbook on the Gospel of Mark for parallel or similar verses.