Introduction to Job 11:2
Job 11:2 is part of Zophar’s first speech, in which he rebukes Job for his words and insists that Job’s suffering is the result of his sin. The verse employs a rhetorical question and parallel structure, both of which are common features in Hebrew poetry. The interrogative particle הֲ introduces a rhetorical question, while the parallelism between the two clauses reinforces Zophar’s argument that excessive speech does not justify innocence.
This study will analyze the syntax, grammatical features, and literary function of Job 11:2.
הֲרֹ֣ב דְּ֭בָרִים לֹ֣א יֵעָנֶ֑ה וְאִם־אִ֖ישׁ שְׂפָתַ֣יִם יִצְדָּֽק׃
Analysis of Key Words/Phrases
1. הֲרֹ֣ב דְּ֭בָרִים (harov devarim)
– Root: רָבַב (“to be many”)
– Form: Masculine singular absolute noun with definite article
– Translation: “Shall a multitude of words”
– Function: Introduces the rhetorical question, emphasizing the quantity of speech rather than its quality.
2. לֹ֣א יֵעָנֶ֑ה (lo ye’aneh)
– Root: עָנָה (“to answer”)
– Form: Nifal imperfect 3rd masculine singular
– Translation: “not be answered”
– Function: Expresses passive voice, suggesting that excessive speech should not go unchallenged.
3. וְאִם־אִ֖ישׁ שְׂפָתַ֣יִם יִצְדָּֽק (ve’im ish sefatayim yitsdaq)
– Verb: יִצְדָּֽק (“shall be justified”)
– Translation: “And shall a man of lips be justified?”
– Function: A parallel rhetorical question, reinforcing skepticism about Job’s innocence based on his words alone.
Explanation of Grammatical Function
The Use of הֲ as an Interrogative Particle
The verse begins with הֲ, an interrogative particle that introduces a yes/no question. This type of question expects a negative answer, implying that mere speech should not go unchallenged.
– Standard Hebrew Interrogatives:
– הֲ (prefix) → Yes/No question (e.g., הֲיֵשׁ לְךָ? “Do you have?”)
– מָה / מִי → Open-ended questions (e.g., מִי זֶה? “Who is this?”)
– Literary Effect:
– The use of הֲרֹ֣ב (“Shall a multitude of words”) implies that Job’s speech is excessive and unjustified.
– The expectation of a negative response strengthens Zophar’s accusation against Job.
The Nifal Verb יֵעָנֶ֑ה (“Shall it not be answered?”)
The verb יֵעָנֶ֑ה (“be answered”) appears in the Nifal (passive) stem, indicating that Job’s words deserve a response.
– Active vs. Passive Contrast:
– Active: “Shall someone answer?” (using Qal)
– Passive: “Shall it not be answered?” (using Nifal)
– Theological Implication:
– By using the passive form, Zophar suggests that divine justice naturally requires a response to Job’s speech.
The Parallelism Between Two Questions
Job 11:2 is structured as a pair of parallel rhetorical questions, which reinforce each other:
1. Shall a multitude of words not be answered?
2. Shall a man of lips be justified?
Each phrase contrasts quantity vs. truth:
– רֹ֣ב דְּ֭בָרִים (“a multitude of words”) vs. שְׂפָתַ֣יִם (“a man of lips”)
– יֵעָנֶ֑ה (“shall be answered”) vs. יִצְדָּֽק (“shall be justified”)
The Phrase אִישׁ שְׂפָתַ֣יִם (“A Man of Lips”)
The phrase אִישׁ שְׂפָתַ֣יִם (“a man of lips”) is an idiomatic expression emphasizing verbosity.
– Contrast with אִישׁ צַדִּיק (“a righteous man”)
– Instead of associating righteousness with actions, Zophar sarcastically suggests that Job expects justification through speech alone.
– This reflects a key theme in Job—words alone do not determine justice.
The Literary and Theological Function of Rhetorical Questions
1. Reinforcing Zophar’s Accusation
– The interrogative particle הֲ ensures that the audience interprets these as criticisms rather than genuine questions.
– The parallel negation (words ≠ justification) asserts that Job cannot talk his way into innocence.
2. Divine Justice vs. Human Speech
– Job’s defense is based on his own words.
– Zophar argues that truth is independent of speech volume—divine justice will not be swayed by mere argumentation.
3. Irony and Sarcasm in Wisdom Literature
– The phrase “a man of lips” is mocking.
– This aligns with the tone of Job’s friends, who assume that Job’s suffering must indicate guilt.
The Role of Rhetorical Parallelism in Job’s Debate
The rhetorical structure of Job 11:2 exemplifies wisdom literature’s use of questions to challenge assumptions. Zophar’s speech is a direct rebuttal to Job’s self-defense, asserting that:
– Speech is not a substitute for truth.
– Divine justice is not determined by the volume of words.
– Job’s expectation of justification through words alone is flawed.
By employing a pair of rhetorical questions and poetic parallelism, the verse intensifies Zophar’s argument that Job’s complaints should not be left unanswered.
