Philo cites Numbers 24:7 twice: in Mos. 1:290 (where he retells the Balaam story, including the third oracle but excluding the fourth) and Praem. 95. The latter is one of the few instances in which Philo speaks of a future eschatological age in which war, both among animals and among humankind, will cease. Philo mentions ἄνθρωπος as one who will lead an army to pacify the world of savage men.236 Although this might seem to imply that Philo understood this ἄνθρωπος to be a messianic figure, ἄνθρωπος plays no further role in Philo's vision of the future age. Furthermore, Lust observes, Philo typically eschews the notion of an individual messianic figure. Here, he suggests, ἄνθρωπος is intended as a reference to humankind, which stands in contrast to wild animals and brutish humans.237
The early Church fathers, Justin Martyr and Irenaus, do not preserve ἄνθρωπος, but instead give ἡγούμενος and dux, respectively.238 Their focus, furthermore, is on the star, which is applied to Jesus, or understood to be pointing to Jesus. Later Church fathers, such as Origen and Eusebius, do preserve ἄνθρωπος, but their discussion of the text is almost exclusively concerned with issues related to the humanity and divinity of Christ, not his messianic identity. The earliest Christian evidence does not have ἄνθρωπος yet focuses more on the messianic identity of Jesus. In contrast, the later Christian evidence, which reads ἄνθρωπος, is less concerned with messianism.239 In other words, the use of ἄνθρωπος is associated with non-messianic readings of Numbers 24:17. Lust concludes that, in the absence of clear evidence from Greek interpretive traditions that attach messianic significance to ἄνθρωπος, ἄνθρωπος cannot be understood as an example of messianic interpretation by the LXX
translator.
In favor of messianic associations for ἄνθρωπος, Vermes and Horbury argue that, although ἄνθρωπος has a wide semantic range, it would have included messianic associations.240 They cite multiple situations in which a variety of terms meaning “man” are understood as messianic, either
explicitly in the text or in later interpretation.241 In addition, Horbury observes what he calls a “tendency toward titularity” in words and phrases found in messianically interepreted passages.242 In other words, key terms in texts to which were attributed messianic significance could absorb some of that messianic significance, so that the use of a term elsewhere could bring to mind the significance of that entire messianic passage. Horbury applies this tendency to the phrase “son of man,” arguing that it became a messianic title as a result of its appearance in Daniel 7:13 and the messianic association of terms for “man.”243 If this indeed is what took place with “son of man,” it could have also presumably taken place with ἄνθρωπος. Its messianic use in various instances could have resulted in ἄνθρωπος gaining a titular function.244 The key issue that divides these two perspectives on ἄνθρωπος is the breadth of evidence allowed to have bearing. Lust restricts his discussion to only the term ἄνθρωπος, and therefore excludes any messianic associations that ἀνήρ etc. may have. On the other hand, Vermes and Horbury find messianic significance in the cluster of overlapping terms meaning “man.”245 Consequently, any use of any of these terms could contribute to or derive meaning from the concept “man.” For Vermes and Horbury, if a text with messianic associations uses ἀνήρ, those associations could be evoked in other instances where ἀνήρ or ἄνθρωπος or any other word meaning “man” appears, since they are all linked to the concept “man.” This approach is problematic because it ignores the distinction between words and concepts. For Vermes and Horbury, the concept “man” is virtually indistinguishable from the various Greek and Hebrew words that denote “man.”
A few observations on ἄνθρωπος are in order. First, messianic language cannot be reduced to a limited set of specific words. Biblical literature uses a variety of words and phrases to express ideas, and messianic language can be either direct or circumlocutional. Some words semantically overlap with ἄνθρωπος, and their connotations can overlap as well, although they do not necessarily do so. Second, even a cursory examination of the LXX text shows that sometimes the translator adheres to a specific translation equivalent, and at other times varies vocabulary for no apparent reason.
Similarly, the occurrence of calques in the LXX indicates that Greek words could acquire new meanings from their Hebrew counterparts. This means that the translator could conceivably have thought of ἄνθρωπος as carrying at least some the same meaning and resonances as איש .The translator stands in a unique position between the Hebrew and Greek texts, and in the translator the two languages intersect and influence one another.246
Third, we should be careful not to overload the semantic content of a word. A word may have a wide range of potential meanings, but a much more limited range within a specific context. The most important determiner of whether or not ἄνθρωπος has messianic significance is not its use elsewhere, but its immediate context. ἄνθρωπος must be evaluated in the context of the verses in which it appears: 24:7 and 24:17, as well as the larger context of Balaam's oracles as a whole, and the broader narrative of Numbers 22-24.
Finally, the translator did not pick the term ἄνθρωπος at random. He chose ἄνθρωπος out of all the translation options at his disposal because he thought that it best communicated the meaning of the passage. The signficance of ἄνθρωπος in Numbers 24:7, 17, should therefore be understood in light of how the translators of the LXX used ἄνθρωπος elsewhere, and how the rest of the Balaam account is
translated.
We can conclude therefore that the use of the term ἄνθρωπος does alter the meaning of the oracles by focusing on a particular (but unspecified) figure who plays a key role in the exaltation of Israel. However, it should not be understood as a the translator imposing a messianic ideology on an otherwise non-messianic text. We have no indication that the translator of Numbers intended his translation of 24:7, 17 to evoke associations with any other text, and we have no way of knowing whether the translator had a larger conceptual scheme in mind that influenced him to use ἄνθρωπος, or if he was focused on translating this passage with no thought to how his translation might be understood in the light of other LXX passages.
237Ibid.
238Justin Martyr, Dial., CVI 4; Irenaus, Demonstr., 58; Adv. Haeres., III:9:2.
239Lust, “The Greek Version” 241-5. Lust excludes as evidence The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, which alludes to
Num 24:17 twice at T. Levi 18 and T. Judah 24, as textually problematic since it contains Christian scribal intervention and
exists in longer and shorter versions.
240See Vermes’s discussion on various terms meaning “man” in Scripture and Tradition, 56-66; Horbury, “Messianic
Associations of the Son of Man,” 48ff.
241E.g. איש) ἀνήρ) in Kings 2:4 8:25; 9:5; 2Chr 6:16; 7:18; Zech 6:12; איש) ὁ ἄνθρωπος) Isa 32:2; גבר) ἀνήρ) in 2 Sam 23:1;
בן־אדם) ἀνήρ) Ps 80:17[LXX 79:18]; זכר) ἄρσεν) Isa 66:7; מושיע) ἄνθρωπον ὃς σώσει αὐτούς) Isa 19:20.
242Horbury, “Messianic Associations,” 52.
243Ibid, 48.
244Some commentators have taken Pilate’s statement in John 19:5, ἰδοὺ ὁ ἄνθρωπος, as a possible allusion to Zech 6:12 (ἰδοὺ ἀνήρ) and/or Numbers 24:7. See C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 541; Raymond Brown, The Gospel
According to John, 875-876; Wayne A. Meeks, Prophet-King, 70-72.
245Vermes, Scripture and Tradition, 56-66; Horbury, “Messianic Associations of the Son of Man,” 48ff.
246N. F. Marcos describes this tendency, “The translation into Greek of polysemic Hebrew words often produces an
extension of the semantic field of the Greek word in question, creating new meanings” (The Septuagint in Context, (trans Wilfred G. E. Watson; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 24.
https://www.twu.ca/sites/default/files/ ... orff_k.pdf