Exegesis:
houtos ‘he’; the demonstrative pronoun serves here as a personal pronoun, cf. Moule 122.
huios hupsistou ‘son of the Most High’ is a parallel expression of ‘son of God’ (v. 35). The Old Testament knows only the king as son of God by adoption (Ps. 2.7) but Jesus will be son of God by birth, cf. v. 35.
hupsistos lit. ‘highest’ occurs either in the plural of the neuter (2.14; 19.38) in the meaning ‘the highest places,’ hence ‘heaven,’ or in the singular of the masculine as a name of God. As such it is a Septuagint translation of an Old Testament name of God which very probably also has the meaning ‘highest.’ Once it is combined with theos (8.28). Without theos it is regarded as a proper name and therefore used without article.
klēthēsetai ‘will be called,’ refers not to a personal name as in the preceding verse but to an official appellation, hence ‘will be given the title.’ The agent is God. There is no contrast between estai ‘he will be’ and klēthēsetai as if the latter should mean ‘he will only be in name.’
ton thronon Dauid tou patros autou ‘the throne of his father David,’ i.e. the reign over Israel as once exercised by David. The phrase implies that the child Mary will bear is to be the Messiah. Since the expression thronos Dauid was well known, the apposition tou patros autou has predicative value and gives an additional qualification of the name Dauid.
patēr here ‘ancestor.’
Translation:
Will be called the Son of the Most High. This passive verbal form, or a corresponding impersonal active one, ‘they (or, people/one) will call him…,’ often will be misleading, because the agent is taken to be men in general, the public. It is preferable then to use such a rendering as, “He will bear the title ‘Son of the Most High’ ” (New English Bible), ‘his name will be son of God (who) is in heaven’ (Kituba). If an active verbal clause is obligatory, one may say, ‘God will call him (or, give him the title/name) son of the Most High,’ or, if this would suggest the ‘God’ and ‘Most High,’ have different referents, ‘the Most High (God) will call him his son.’ For Son of the Most High cf. on “Son of God” in v. 35. The Most High, or, ‘the-one-who-is absolutely beyond-all’ (Navajo, similarly in Apache, Toraja-Sa’dan), or a combination of two synonyms for ‘high/long’ (Uab Meto). In some languages the expression rendering “most high” cannot be nominalized; hence one may have to add a noun, e.g. ‘the Highest Person’ (Ekari), ‘God who (is) high/highest’ (Bambara, Thai), ‘the Lord on High’ (Tae,’ cf. also Kituba quoted above).
The Lord God, see on v. 16. The term for “God” has to be possessed in Toraja-Sa’dan, ‘our (inclusive)-Worshipped-one,’ similarly that for “Lord” in Apache.
Give him the throne of … David. In languages where ‘throne’ can be used metaphorically for ‘rule/reign (as king),’ only some minor adaptations may be necessary, such as, (1) “give him” becoming ‘seat him on,’ ‘cause him to sit on,’ ‘cause him to possess (or, inherit)’; (2) “throne” being described, e.g. by ‘large stool,’ ‘stool/seat of the king’ (Marathi), ‘seat of commanding/chieftainship’ (Highland Totonac, Kituba), ‘seat of the Supreme one (lit. of-him-who-has-the umbrella)’ (Toraja-Sa’dan, the umbrella being a well known symbol of power in various parts of South and South-East Asia), or again, ‘glorious place to sit’ (Ekari); and (3) the qualitative force of the genitive “of … David” and the reference to the past being made more explicit, e.g. ‘the throne that … David has sat on (or, has possessed).’ Non-metaphorically “throne” may be rendered ‘kingship,’ ‘reign/majesty/authority of king’ (Balinese); where a verbal construction is preferable this may lead to, “make him a king” (Good News Translation), ‘give him that over-which … David when-he-was-ruler had-charge’ (Navajo), or, ‘our-Lord God will cause Jesus to rule-over that-which David ruled-over’ (Apache).
His father David, or, if a predicative relationship cannot be expressed in the receptor language by simple apposition, .’.. of David, who is his (fore)father,’ or, .’.. of David. For (king) David is his (fore)father.’ For father, in the sense of ‘grandfather,’ ‘forefather,’ ‘ancestor’ (also in 1.73; 3.8; 16.24, 27, 30). In some languages one usually speaks of ‘forefathers’ in the plural (cf. below on v. 55). Then the accompanying proper name will often be enough to qualify this collective expression as a singular; if not, it may be possible to use some phrase like, ‘David (who is) one of (or, the principal one amongst) his forefathers.’ In other languages, which do not possess any specific term for ‘(individual) ancestor,’ it often is possible to describe the concept, e.g. by saying, ‘David, the founder of his lineage/family,’ ‘D., the one he descends from.’ In Apache it proved better only to translate the time element inherent in “forefather”; hence, “the throne of his father D.” has been rendered ‘that-which D. not-recently (i.e. a long time ago) ruled-over.’
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.