Provocative Vocatives in the Gospels: Part 2,Matthew,Luke

How Jesus addresses God

The vocatives addressed by Jesus to God come in two pairs, the first in his prayer in Matt 11.25 and 26, and the second in his prayer in Gethsemane in 26.39 and 42. The earlier pair is somewhat curious in that the first occurrence has the real vocative pater, while the second has the nominative form ho patēr with the definite article. The first occurrence is expanded with the phrase kurie tou ouranou kai tēs gēs “Lord of heaven and earth” with the regular vocative form kurie. It is not easy to see why in v. 26 the nominative form is used, though the addition of the definite article may be a hint that this record of Jesus’ prayer is a translation from Aramaic even though the word abba is not included.

In both 26.39 and 42 the address is to pater mou “my Father,” with the vocative form intensified by the possessive. This fits well with the agonized context of Gethsemane, and is quite probably Matthew’s way of indicating the strong emotion carried in the parallel in Mark 14.36 by the inclusion of the Aramaic abba.

In these four texts, the problem for translators is not so much what words to choose, but how to be sure that the highly personal nature of the relationship between Jesus and God is conveyed as well as possible. English versions are virtually identical in their wording, but perhaps the KJV comes closest to heightening the tension of the situations of Jesus’ prayers by prefixing the vocatives with “O” in 11.25 and 26.39, 42. Whether this reflects actual spoken usage in the seventeenth century or is more of a literary convention that is now much less used I cannot say. In some languages there may be particles or affixes that can be included to indicate the high emotive impact, and translators need to be very sensitive to such possibilities.

How Jesus addresses other people

This discussion will not include four instances where the words oligopistoi or oligopiste “people of little faith” occur (6.30; 8.26; 14.31; 16.8). Although these are morphologically and syntactically vocative, semantically they stand for a full clause, stating that the addressee(s) are lacking in faith, and in English and many other languages they need to be translated with a clause or sentence rather than a single term. The same reasoning is applied to the vocative phrase ō genea apistos “faithless generation” in 17.17.

Only three of the vocatives used in Mark also occur in Matthew, and where they occur in contexts that have a parallel in Mark, they will not be discussed further. These cases are teknon in 9.2 // Mark 2.5, thugater in 9.22 // Mark 5.34, and Satana in 16.23 // Mark 8.33. The vocative Satana also occurs in 4.10, where Jesus is rebuking the Devil, and there it functions as a proper name, and so hardly creates a translation problem.

The first vocative not found in Mark occurs at 7.5, hupokrita, but here it is in what is virtually a hypothetical conversation in the Sermon on the Mount, and is not an example of Jesus addressing an actual interlocutor. The plural form hupokritai occurs in 15.7 and 22.18 where Jesus is addressing Pharisees or their representatives. Some English versions for stylistic reasons add a pronoun in one or both places, and say, “You hypocrites” (RSV, Phps, NEB, NJB, GNB, NIV, NLT), which does increase the vehemence of the vocative. In other languages, translators may or may not need to follow this pattern, depending on whether they have a suitable term for “hypocrites” or need to restructure the meaning as a full clause.

The next vocative that did not occur in Mark is the phrase gennēmata echidnōn, which is used three times (3.7; 12.34; 23.33), in each case referring to Pharisaic opponents. The first occurrence in 3.7 actually comes from the mouth of John the Baptist rather than Jesus, so strictly speaking is beyond the scope of this article. The phrase is generally rendered in English as “brood of vipers” (NJB, NIV) or something similar, and although this is not common parlance, it has become something of a set expression, and is readily understood as a very hostile form of address. In the third occurrence in 23.33 it is preceded and reinforced by the vocative noun opheis, translated as “serpents” or “snakes.” How translators in other languages handle this phrase will vary widely. Some languages may have a similar expression or a parallel one referring not to snakes but to some other harmful creature such as a poisonous spider, a scorpion, a hornet, or a locust, while others may have to restructure as “you are no better than a brood of snakes,” “you are as vicious as snakes,” or something similar.

In 15.28, Jesus addresses the Canaanite woman who was asking for a demon to be cast out of her daughter as ō gunai, translated as “woman” or “O woman” in many English versions (KJV, RSV, NEB, NJB, NIV, NLT), despite the fact that this sounds brusque to the point of rudeness. Phps omits the vocative altogether, and GNB incorporates it into the following sentence with, “You are a woman of great faith.” In Koine Greek, to say gunai was not a rude way of addressing an adult female, and the author of John’s Gospel represents Jesus as using the same term both to his mother in John 2.4 and to Mary Magdalene in John 19.26 and 20.15. ¹ This may well be an acceptable form of address in some languages (such as Russian), but in English, it gives completely the wrong connotation for this context. More suitable would be “lady” or “madam” or no vocative at all. In some languages, the only female that a man can address as “woman” is his own wife, so of course, in such languages this vocative would never be appropriate in the mouth of Jesus.

There are two instances in Matthew of Jesus addressing someone by name, in both cases, Simon Peter (16.17 and 17.25). In the second case Jesus is simply attracting Simon’s attention to the question of paying the temple tax that needs discussion. There is no sense of rebuke, and the simple retention of the name will not cause problems in most languages, though some may need to add a polite label such as “Mr.” to avoid giving an impression of rudeness. In the first case, Jesus uses both the personal name and the patronymic, “Simon Bar-Jona” (RSV), which may sound rather formal, but as the context shows, in no way expresses distance or disapproval. Jesus is in effect congratulating Simon on his recognition that Jesus is indeed the Messiah. Perhaps the presumably raised level of formality carries the connotation of “at last your understanding is becoming more mature.” It is hard to say what if any implications the addition of the patronymic Bar-Jona has for English readers. Several modern versions translate as “Simon son of Jonah” (Phps, NEB, NJB, NIV), while others have “Simon son of John” (GNB, NLT). The actual form of the father’s name is less important than its inclusion, though it would be anachronistic in English to use a modern surname and turn it into “Simon Johnson.” In other languages, however, this may be acceptable, and for instance seems to be the option taken in the 1981 Icelandic Bible, which has “Simon Jónasson,” this being not only a surname still in modern use, but also a formation that is still productive in Icelandic. This option was not taken in the 1999 Swedish New Testament, which has “Simon Barjona.”

In Jesus’ diatribe against the scribes and Pharisees (23.13-29), Jesus addresses his opponents several times as “scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” In each case this rebuke is preceded by “Woe to you,” which together with the repetition imparts something of an aura of ritual. This hardly affects the way in which “hypocrites” is to be rendered, and the same pattern as used elsewhere (15.7 and 22.18) of either a single term, or a restructuring of the meaning, will probably fit here as well.

In the same speech, Jesus heaps further scorn on the scribes and Pharisees by addressing them as hodēgoi tuphloi (“blind guides” in 23.16 and 24), mōroi kai tuphloi (“blind fools” in 23.17), and simply tuphloi (“blind men” in 23.19). The expression “blind Pharisee” in the singular occurs in 23.26. Blindness in this whole passage is of course to be understood metaphorically, and refers to a lack of spiritual insight. The words should not be difficult to translate in most languages; in some, care may need to be taken not to express the meaning in a way that could reinforce any pre-existing cultural prejudice against blind people, such as is implied by the disciples’ question to Jesus in John 9.2.

There is one more vocative in Jesus’ speech, in 26.50, where in the account of Jesus’ betrayal and arrest, he addresses Judas as hetaire, which is translated as “friend” in KJV, RSV, REB, GNB, and NIV, and “my friend” in Phps and NLT. This rendering is distinctly misleading and overlooks the fact that the word hetaire is used as a term of rebuke in both its other occurrences in this Gospel (20.13; 22.12), the only Gospel in which it occurs. It is clearly not used in an amicable sense here. Finding a suitable term in English is very difficult. Judas has just addressed Jesus as rabbi (26.49) in a context which makes this normally respectful term appear distinctly sarcastic, so a rebuke from Jesus is entirely appropriate. The translation “friend,” despite its popularity, is certainly not the solution. Saying “my friend” allows for the possibility of a note of irony, but does not demand it. This is a setting in which “fellow,” “my good fellow,” or even “mate” might fit, depending on the level of the translation and the intended readership. In some dialects, perhaps “dude” would be appropriate, though in this context, it could also sound a bit too much like a pun on the name of Judas. Perhaps here, it would be appropriate for Jesus to address Judas by his personal name. There seems to be no ideal solution in English, but translators in other languages need to consider the setting carefully and to see what options may be open to them.

How other people address Jesus

In stark contrast with its sole occurrence in Mark, the most common term of address to Jesus in Matthew is kurie, which may therefore be considered the term least laden with subtle overtones. It is used by a wide range of speakers in a wide range of contexts, including a leper (8.2), a centurion (8.6, 8), disciples or would-be disciples (8.21, 25), blind men (9.28; 20.31, 33), a Canaanite woman (15.22, 25), an unnamed man (17.15), and most of all by Peter (14.28, 30; 16.22; 17.4; 18.21). This frequent usage presumably arises from Matthew’s greater familiarity with Greek, and at least in the cases of the centurion and the Canaanite woman, it probably reflects a conversation originally in Greek.

The question of how best to translate these occurrences into English is more complex than may at first appear. As noted in the discussion of Mark 7.28, ² the noun kurios can cover the whole range of meaning between “sir” and “Lord,” so the difficulty lies in assessing what “Lord” in each context would imply for the reader. Leaving aside for the moment the occurrences of kurie in the mouth of Peter, let us summarize the choices made by various major versions. Several (KJV, RSV, NLT) use “Lord” in all the other cases, as does NIV in all cases except 8.21, where it has “teacher.” NJB also has “Lord” in most cases, using “sir” only in 8.2, 6, and 8. By contrast GNB uses “sir” in all cases, as does NEB in all cases except one (8.21) where it has “master.” It is not clear why NEB and NIV both depart from their normal term in 8.21 only. Does the context there really require any change from the rendering used elsewhere? Is “teacher” or “master” any improvement on “sir”? Were the various translation teams making choices that arose more from their subconscious theological presuppositions than from a detailed examination of the differing contexts? ³

The deeper problem for translators is to assess the degree of spiritual insight of the speaker in each context. One could argue that where the speakers also identify Jesus as the Son of David, as happens with the blind men in 9.27; 20.30, 31, they are showing a clearer grasp of his true identity, so that “Lord” would be appropriate. But the Canaanite woman also calls Jesus “kurie son of David” in 15.22, so is “Lord” again the best option? Just as Mark hinted that the blind may have more insight than the sighted, could Matthew be implying that a Gentile, and a woman at that, had more insight into Jesus’ identity than his own male Jewish disciples, who just wanted to ignore her? Each translation team has to weigh up the issue in its own sociocultural setting before making a decision about what term is most appropriate.

With the other occurrences of kurie, probably “sir” is the better option. This would come first from the leper in 8.2, and then the centurion in 8.6, 8. “Sir” is particularly fitting in the mouth of a military man. Both the leper and the centurion are asking Jesus for help with a health problem, so if “sir” is used in these contexts, then it would probably also fit best in 17.15, where a father is requesting healing for his demon-possessed son. It would also seem best in the words of the disciple lacking full commitment in 8.21. However, a few verses later in 8.25, when the disciples are imploring the sleeping Jesus to still the storm, and tacitly assuming that he is able to do so, perhaps “Lord” would be the more suitable option.

When we come to Peter’s use of kurie, decisions have to be even more carefully nuanced according to their immediate setting. In 14.28, where Peter asks Jesus to call him to walk on the water, is kurie an implicit recognition of Jesus’ divine status, or just an impetuous desire for showmanship? When Peter starts to sink two verses later, is his repetition of kurie a sign of deeper insight, or just of panic and desperation? Would it be appropriate to translate as “sir” in v. 28 and “Lord” in v. 30, or should the same term be used both times? If the latter, which term is preferable? In 16.22, shortly after Peter’s explicit confession of Jesus’ true identity in 16.16, does Peter’s rejection of Jesus’ prophecy of his death and resurrection indicate a temporary misunderstanding, or a deeply based cultural misconception about the role of the true Messiah? Is “Lord” socially acceptable in a situation where Peter is contradicting and in effect rebuking Jesus? In 17.4 at the transfiguration, it seems that Peter’s words, despite their impulsiveness, do indeed merit the use of “Lord.” In 18.21, Peter is asking for enlightenment on a practical moral question about forgiveness, so does his request show true acknowledgement of Jesus’ authority, or is it more of a throw-away line, just to stimulate discussion? I dare not suggest general answers to any of these questions even for English, and in other languages there may be linguistic or cultural factors to be taken into account that have not occurred to me.

The next most common term of address to Jesus is didaskale “teacher,” but in contrast with its distribution in Mark, in Matthew it is never used by the disciples. Apart from the scribe whom Jesus warned in 8.19 about potential homelessness as a risk of becoming a disciple, and the rich young man seeking eternal life in 19.16, it is used only by Jesus’ antagonists. These are the scribes and Pharisees demanding a sign in 12.38, Pharisees and Herodians trying to trap him in 22.16 and 22.36, and Sadducees doing the same in 22.24. The obvious rendering in English is “teacher” and this is found in all six places in RSV, GNB, NIV, and NLT. Perhaps surprisingly, KJV, Phps, NEB, and NJB all consistently say “master,” though it is hard to see why, as this term is obsolete as a vocative, at least in my experience (except as a term of address to the heads of many of the colleges in the universities of Cambridge and Oxford!). In other languages, translators would need to consider their options very carefully. A respectful term would be fitting in 8.19 and 19.16, but a more neutral, ambiguous, or even outrightly sarcastic term could be more appropriate in the other four contexts, if such a term is available.

In 8.29 the Gadarene demoniacs address Jesus as “son of God,” a somewhat briefer vocative than in the parallel in Mark 5.7. The translation of the words is not normally a problem, but several English versions (Phps, NEB, GNB) try to underline the hostile nature of the encounter by saying “you son of God.” Other languages may have some equally unobtrusive way to emphasize the antagonism of the demons.

The word “rabbi” is spoken in Matthew only by Judas Iscariot in 26.25 and 49, and the context of his betrayal makes it clear that there is a strong element of hypocrisy, or at least irony, in his choice of this term. Of English versions, KJV, RSV, and Phps use “master” and GNB and NLT “teacher,” but in many languages the word “rabbi” can be retained in the translation, perhaps with a footnote. It is probably best to use a term different from that used for didaskale if possible.

The only other vocative addressed to Jesus in Matthew is basileu tōn Ioudaiōn, “king of the Jews,” in 27.29, which should be treated in the same way as the identical expression in Mark 15.18 (Clark 2019, 153).

How Jesus addresses God

As in the other Synoptics, Jesus addresses God consistently as “Father.” The first two examples are both in Luke 10.21 and are exactly the same as the parallels in Matt 11.25-26 noted above, so need not be discussed further. The other three cases are in Luke 22.42; 23.34; and 23.46. The first of these occurs in the prayer in Gethsemane, and is parallel with Matt 26.39 and Mark 14.36, though it differs slightly from both. Where Mark had abba ho patēr and Matthew pater mou, Luke has only pater, which is perhaps rather less intense, but should not create any translation problems. The other occurrences of pater, in 23.34 and 46 are both unique to Luke’s account of the crucifixion, and as simple vocatives, should cause no new problems.

How Jesus addresses other people

As in Matthew, this discussion will not include either the single occurrence of oligopistoi “people of little faith” in 12.28, or for similar reasons, the lengthy rebuke to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus in 24.25. The long and formally vocative expression there, ō anoētoi kai bradeis tē kardia tou pisteuein epi pasin hois elalēsan hoi prophētai, will almost always need significant restructuring into one or more sentences, and will not emerge as a “normal” vocative, as in NRSV: “Oh, how foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have declared!”

A feature more prominent in Luke than in the other Synoptics is that Jesus several times addresses other people by name: Simon the Pharisee in 7.40, Martha in 10.41, Zacchaeus in 19.5, Simon Peter in 22.31, and Judas Iscariot in 22.48. In general, this should not create any translation problems, except in cultures where it is not normal—where it is impolite or even taboo to address someone by their personal name. In such situations locally relevant solutions need to be found. However, it must be noted that in 10.41 (to Martha) and 22.31 (to Simon Peter), the name is repeated, and the repetition of a personal vocative occurs only in the context of a rebuke. This does not seem to have been taken into account in most English versions, where such a repetition does not have the same implication. (It is perhaps surprising that the vocative is not repeated in the case of Judas in 22.48.) In 22.31 Phps has “Oh, Simon, Simon,” which does convey something of the right connotation. However, in 10.41, Phps has “Martha, my dear,” which sounds condescending rather than reproachful, and addressed as it is to a woman, could give quite the wrong impression in some languages if used as a translation model. NLT at this point has the same words, but in a different order, “my dear Martha,” which, given the appropriate intonation and body language, could carry a tone of rebuke. Although the right intonation could be conveyed in audio format, it cannot be more than implicit in a written text. In English it is hard to see what more could be done than adding “Oh” before the vocatives, though in other languages there may be particles or perhaps variations in word order that could convey the reproach unambiguously. In English, perhaps this might be more forcefully conveyed by putting the “oh” before the repetition, and saying “Martha, oh Martha” and “Simon, oh Simon,” though there may be dialectal constraints to such a solution.

Three of Luke’s vocatives have already occurred in Mark or Matthew or both. The first term is thugatēr “daughter” in 8.48, addressed to the woman with the haemorrhage, and identical with the parallel in Mark 5.34, using the nominative form rather than Matthew’s “correct” vocative form. Then in Luke 23.28 Jesus on the way to his crucifixion addresses a group of his female followers as thugateres Ierousalēm, literally, “daughters of Jerusalem.” This is the translation used in KJV, RSV, NEB, NJB, and NLT. It is not very natural in English, and Phps and GNB express it in a more modern way as “women of Jerusalem.” Translators in other languages will need to decide what form of address best fits the context in their language and culture.

The second term is hupokritai “hypocrites” in 12.56 and 13.15, addressed to an undefined crowd in the first case and a ruler of the synagogue and others in the congregation in the second. Although these contexts are not paralleled in the other Gospels, the translation of the vocative would almost certainly be done in the same way as elsewhere.

The third term is gunai “woman” in 13.12 and 22.57. Both passages are unique to Luke. In the first Jesus is addressing a woman who could not stand up straight, and in the second Peter is addressing a maid after Jesus’ arrest. The second is not an utterance of Jesus, but is mentioned here because, as in 13.12, it illustrates the point already made that in Greek this is not a rude way to address an adult female. In 13.12 the same translation as used elsewhere can almost certainly be used, but in 22.57, the female in question is a paidiskē, a youngster (v. 56), and the context is at least impersonal, and possibly confrontational, so it may be more appropriate to reflect this by saying “young woman” or perhaps “my girl.” Most English versions say “woman,” though Phps has “girl.”

There are four other vocative terms in Luke that do not occur in Mark or Matthew. The first is anthrōpē in 5.20 and 12.14. This is a generic term for human beings, but is here spoken only to males. In 5.20 the person addressed is the paralytic brought to Jesus by his friends, and addressed as teknon “child” in the other Synoptics. It seems unlikely that Luke intended to indicate a different attitude towards the man on the part of Jesus, so perhaps Luke regarded teknon addressed to an adult as a usage distinctive of Jewish speakers of Greek, and chose a term that seemed to him more natural. Some English versions translate literally as “man” (KJV, RSV, NEB) while several others have “friend” (NIV) or “my friend” (Phps, GNB, NJB). “Man” sounds rather impersonal, so that “(my) friend” fits the situation better. In some dialects perhaps “laddie” would be suitable. It is hard to see why NLT has “son” as in the parallel passages in Matthew and Mark, and one wonders if this was a slip. In 12.14 Jesus is responding to a request from an unnamed man who is asking Jesus for a ruling about inheritance, so “man” is not inappropriate in this context, and is found in KJV, RSV, and GNB. It seems preferable to “my friend” (NJB) or just “friend” in NLT. Other renderings include “my good man” (NEB) and “my dear man” (Phps). With suitable intonation this last could carry the right tone of reproach, but the NEB “my good man” seems a better option.

Peter also uses anthrōpē as a vocative twice when he is denying Jesus in 22.58, 60. In these impersonal and implicitly hostile settings, “man” (KJV, RSV, Phps, GNB, NIV, NLT) seems to fit quite well. Curiously, NEB omits it in v. 58 but includes it in v. 60. Even more incongruously, NJB has “my friend” in both places, which in many dialects of English would be quite out of keeping with the thrust of the narrative.

The second peculiarly Lukan vocative is the diminutive form neaniske in 7.14, where Jesus is raising the son of the widow of Nain from death. The obvious rendering in English is “young man,” which is found in all the English versions I have checked, though “laddie” or “my lad” would also be a possibility. Most languages will have a suitable equivalent, some expressing it in a single word as the Greek does. The third Lukan vocative occurs in a similar situation in 8.54 where Jesus is raising Jairus’s daughter. There he uses a nominative with an article as a vocative, saying hē pais, literally, “the child.” This is parallel with Mark’s to korasion as a rendering of talitha, and the article is presumably Luke’s acknowledgement that the original utterance was in Aramaic even though he does not quote it. Several English versions translate as “my child” (Phps, NEB, NIV, NLT), and this seems to reflect the social situation well. NJB and GNB do not add the possessive “my,” the omission of which makes it sound somewhat abrupt, but in other languages translators have to make their own decisions, bearing in mind that the possessive pronoun might carry wrong implications. A possible but very colloquial form of address to a young girl in at least some varieties of British English is “poppet.” This would convey a sympathetic and affectionate attitude, but is probably dialectally restricted.

The last vocative peculiar to Luke is aphrones in 11.40. This is in a rebuke to the Pharisees similar to but not verbally identical with that in Matt 23.25-26, and in English “fools” or “you fools” occurs in most versions. NIV expands to “you foolish people,” which may be a suitable model in some languages. Phps restructures to a question, “Have you no sense?” In English this tends to reduce the abrasiveness, though in some languages it may be necessary to do something similar.

How other people address Jesus

The first vocative addressed to Jesus in Luke is at 2.48 where his anxious mother calls him teknon, the only occurrence of this term in this Gospel. This incident is unique to Luke, and this vocative seems completely appropriate for a worried parent to an apparently absconding twelve-year-old. NJB translates as “my child” though all the other English versions consulted have “son” or “my son.” In a modern context this seems more appropriate than “child” for a boy who was almost a teenager. In other languages, the term chosen will vary according to the lexical resources and social structures of the receptor culture. This word is also used by fathers to sons in the parables in Luke 15.31 and Matt 21.28.

In 4.34, a demon-possessed man calls to “Jesus of Nazareth” in words almost identical with those in Mark 1.24, and in Luke 8.28 Jesus is addressed by the Gerasene demoniac as “Jesus, Son of the Most High God” in words identical with Mark 5.7. Jesus is also called by name by Bartimaeus in 18.38, with “Son of David” added as in Mark 10.47, so no further comment is needed on any of these verses. Unique to Luke is the plea of the dying thief to Jesus by name in 23.42, with no added description. This should not be a translation problem, though here as in various other places, some languages may require the addition of a polite title to the name in order to exclude any implication of rudeness or presumption.

The personal name of Jesus is used again by the ten lepers in 17.13, this time with the addition of a term unique to Luke, epistata. This term means something like “teacher” and is also spoken to Jesus by Peter in 5.5; 8.45; and 9.33, by John in 9.49, and by the disciples on the ship in the storm in 8.24. In this last example its parallel in Mark 4.38 has didaskale, which is similar in meaning. The variation between Mark and Luke at this point raises the interesting question whether Luke perceived some difference in meaning or connotation between the two words. It is also notable that Luke duplicates the word in 8.24, and as we have seen, a reduplicated vocative carries a sense of rebuke, and in the context of the sinking ship, panic. The other occurrences of epistata in Luke are all in the utterances of disciples, with no negative overtones or hint of insincerity anywhere.

The vocative didaskale “teacher” is used ten times in Luke, once (18.18) with the adjective agathe “good” added. This passage is parallel with Mark 10.17 and requires no further comment. Of the other occurrences, one is from the disciples (21.7) and one from the unnamed man asking Jesus for a ruling about his inheritance (12.13). There is no hint of disrespect or trickery in this context, so “teacher” seems quite fitting. The remaining seven instances of didaskale all come from Jesus’ opponents, and this distribution perhaps indicates that Luke saw this word as open to carrying an element of sarcasm or hypocrisy that epistata did not. It is used by Simon the Pharisee in 7.40, lawyers in 10.25 and 11.45, Pharisees in 19.39, undercover agents of the religious establishment in 20.21, and Sadducees in 20.28 and 39. It is also used by tax collectors to John the Baptist in 3.12. It is hard to see any more suitable term than “teacher” in English, and this is indeed the rendering in RSV, GNB, NIV, and NLT, though Phps, NEB, and NJB all follow the KJV in retaining the rather archaic “master.”

The most common, and therefore probably least marked term of address to Jesus in Luke is kurie, which occurs over a dozen times. It is used three times by Peter (5.8; 12.41; 22.33), by a leper (5.12), by a centurion (7.6), by would-be disciples (9.59, 61), by James and John (9.54), by various other disciples (10.17; 17.37; 22.38), by Martha (10.40), and by unnamed persons (11.1; 13.23). This is a wide range of speakers, and in several cases, “sir” would seem to be the obvious rendering. However, perhaps surprisingly, all the versions checked say “Lord” in all cases except 5.12; 7.6; 9.54, 61; and 13.23. Phps, NJB, and NEB have no vocative in 9.59, but that is a textual rather than a translational decision. In 5.12, NEB and NJB have the leper saying “sir.” In 7.6 the centurion says “sir” in Phps, NEB, NJB, and GNB. In 9.54 Phps has “master,” and in 9.61 and 13.23 NEB, NJB, and GNB have “sir.”

Translators need to take more notice of the varying contexts than many of these English versions seem to have done in translating mechanically as “Lord.” As noted in the comments on Matt 8.8, “sir” is particularly appropriate on the lips of the centurion (7.6), and probably also the leper (5.12), and the hesitant would-be disciples in 9.59, 61. In 10.40, how likely is it that an irritated Martha would have said “Lord” in her attempted rebuke to Jesus? Is this not another place where “sir” may be more fitting? Would the anonymous disciple asking for instruction on prayer in 11.1 have had enough insight to understand Jesus’ true identity, or was he just making a standard request of a respected teacher? The same uncertainty applies to the anonymous questioner in 13.23, and “sir” may be preferable in both places.

The most likely places where “Lord” is more suitable are the utterances of Peter, James, John, and other disciples after Peter’s recognition of Jesus as Messiah in 9.20. These are in 9.54; 10.17; 12.41; 17.37; 22.33, 38. It is impossible to know for sure how many other disciples came to share Peter’s insight, or indeed how firmly he retained it himself in any particular situation, but it seems better to give them the benefit of any doubt. Perhaps the trickiest decision is in 5.8. Peter had addressed Jesus as epistata in 5.5 immediately before the unexpected catch of fish, but after it, he used kurie. This clearly represents a change of attitude, as shown by Peter’s body language in kneeling before Jesus. But how deep was the change? “Lord” may well be the most suitable rendering here, but is this perhaps a place where “master” might be appropriate as a form of respect for the knowledge of the behaviour of fish that was hardly to be expected from a carpenter?

In the third and final article, it remains only to discuss the vocatives used in the Gospel of John.