Zophar

From BiblePortal Wikipedia
Revision as of 07:29, 15 October 2021 by BiblePortalWiki (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

American Tract Society Bible Dictionary [1]

One of Job's three friends, a native of some unknown place called Naamah. He appears but twice in the dialogue, once less than his two associates, whose general sentiments he shares, with perhaps more severity of judgment against Job,  Job 2:11;  11:1-20;  Job 20:1 -  29 .

Smith's Bible Dictionary [2]

Zo'phar. (Sparrow). One of the three friends of Job.  Job 2:11;  Job 11:1;  Job 20:1;  Job 42:9.

People's Dictionary of the Bible [3]

Zophar ( Zô'Phar ). One of Job's three friends.  Job 2:11, is called the Naamathite, probably because he belonged to Naamah,  Joshua 15:41, a town assigned to Judah.

Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible [4]

ZOPHAR . The third in order of Job’s three friends, described in the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] as ‘king of the Minæans’ (  Job 2:11 ); probably the chief of a tribe on the borders of Idumæa. Cf. art. Job, esp. 2 (8).

Fausset's Bible Dictionary [5]

 Job 11:1;  Job 20:1;  Job 42:9).

Morrish Bible Dictionary [6]

A Naamathite, one of Job's three friends.  Job 2:11;  Job 11:1;  Job 20:1;  Job 42:9 . See JOB.

Holman Bible Dictionary [7]

 1 Chronicles 2:11 Joshua 15:41

Easton's Bible Dictionary [8]

 Job 2:11 Judges 10:12

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia [9]

zō´far ( צפר , צופר , cōphar , meaning doubtful, supposed from root meaning "to leap"; Σωφάρ , Sōphár ): One of the three friends of Job who, hearing of his affliction, make an appointment together to visit and comfort him. He is from the tribe of Naamah, a tribe and place otherwise unknown, for as all the other friends and Job himself are from lands outside of Palestine, it is not likely that this place was identical with Naamah in the West of Judah (  Joshua 15:41 ). He speaks but twice (Job 11; 20); by his silence the 3rd time the writer seems to intimate that with Bildad's third speech ( Job 25:1-6; see under Bildad ) the friends' arguments are exhausted. He is the most impetuous and dogmatic of the three (compare  Job 11:2 ,  Job 11:3;  Job 20:2 ,  Job 20:3 ); stung to passionate response by Job's presumption in maintaining that he is wronged and is seeking light from God. His words are in a key of intensity amounting to reckless exaggeration. He is the first to accuse Job directly of wickedness; averring indeed that his punishment is too good for him ( Job 11:6 ); he rebukes Job's impious presumption in trying to find out the unsearchable secrets of God ( Job 11:7-12 ); and yet, like the rest of the friends, promises peace and restoration on condition of penitence and putting away iniquity ( Job 11:13-19 ). Even from this promise, however, he reverts to the fearful peril of the wicked ( Job 11:20 ); and in his 2nd speech, outdoing the others, he presses their lurid description of the wicked man's woes to the extreme (20:5-29), and calls forth a straight contradiction from Job, who, not in wrath, but in dismay, is constrained by loyalty to truth to acknowledge things as they are. Zophar seems designed to represent the wrong-headedness of the odium theologicum .

Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature [10]

(Heb. Tsohar צוֹפִר , Sparrow, [Gesen.] or Shaggy [Fuirst]; Sept. Ζωφα ; Vulg. Sophar ) , the last named of Job's three friends and opponents in argument ( Job 2:11;  Job 11:1;  Job 20:1;  Job 42:9). B.C. cir. 2000. He is called a Naamathite, or inhabitant of Naamah, a place whose situation is unknown, as it could not be the Naamah mentioned in  Joshua 15:41. Wemyss, in his Job And His Times (p. 111), well characterizes this interlocutor: "Zophar exceeds the other two, if possible, in severity of censure; He is the most inveterate of the accusers, and, speaks without feeling, or pity. He does little more than repeat and exaggerate the arguments of Bildad. He unfeelingly alludes ( Job 11:15) to the effects of Job's disease as appearing in his countenance. This is cruel and invidious. Yet in the same discourse how nobly does he treat-of the divine, attributes, showing that any inquiry into then is far beyond the grasp of the human mind! And though them hortatory part of the first discourse bears some resemblance to that of Eliphaz, yet it is diversified by the fine imagery which he employs. He seems to have had a full conviction of the providence of God as regulating and controlling the actions of men; but he limits all his reasonings to the present life, and makes no reference to a future world. This circumstance alone accounts for the weakness and fallacy of; these men's judgments., In his second discourse there is much poetical beauty in the selection of images, and the general doctrine is founded, in truth; its fallacy: lies in its application to Job's peculiar case. The whole indicates great warmth of temper, inflamed by misapprehension of its object and by mistaken zeal." It is to be observed that Zophar has but two speeches, whereas the others have three each. When Job had replied, (ch. 26-31) to the short address of Bildad (ch. 25), a rejoinder might have been expected from Zophar; but he said nothing, the three friends, by, common consent, then giving up the contest in despair (32, 1). (See Job).

Kitto's Popular Cyclopedia of Biblial Literature [11]

Zo´phar (sparrow?), one of Job's three friends and opponents in argument (; ; ; ). He is called a Naamathite, or inhabitant of Naamah, a place whose situation is unknown, as it could not be the Naamah mentioned in . Wemyss, in his Job and his Times (p. 111), well characterizes this interlocutor—'Zophar exceeds the other two, if possible, in severity of censure, he is the most inveterate of the accusers, and speaks without feeling or pity. He does little more than repeat and exaggerate the arguments of Bildad. He unfeelingly alludes () to the effects of Job's disease as appearing in his countenance. This is cruel and invidious. Yet in the same discourse how nobly does he treat of the divine attributes, showing that any inquiry into them is far beyond the grasp of the human mind! And though the hortatory part of the first discourse bears some resemblance to that of Eliphaz, yet it is diversified by the fine imagery which he employs. He seems to have had a full conviction of the providence of God, as regulating and controlling the actions of men; but he limits all his reasoning to a present life, and makes no reference to a future world. This circumstance alone accounts for the weakness and fallacy of these men's judgments. In his second discourse there is much poetical beauty in the selection of images, and the general doctrine is founded in truth; its fallacy lies in its application to Job's peculiar case. The whole indicates great warmth of temper, inflamed by misapprehension of its object and by mistaken zeal.'

It is to be observed that Zophar has but two speeches, whereas the others have three each. When Job had replied (Job 26-31) to the short address of Bildad (Job 25), a rejoinder might have been expected from Zophar; but he said nothing, the three friends, by common consent, then giving up the contest in despair () [[[Job, The Book Of]]]

References