"Herzog"

The parable of the widow and the judge presents two characters and at least two intertwined social systems that bring the characters together. The earliest interpretation of a judge is found in the saying attached to the parable where he is called "a judge of unrighteousness/injustice." The judge is beyond shame; neither son spell to God's justice nor an appeal to human need can evoke a sense of shame. AS Bailey sees it, the judge's problem is "his inability to sense the evil of his actions in the presence of the one ego should make him ashamed." These uniformly censorious descriptions do raise questions about what setting is imagined in the parable that the judge is and how he got to be a judge in the first place. Derrett believes that the parable depicts a widow who has avoided the customary Torah courts and has gone straight to Hellenistic judge, because she thinks that she can expedite her case in the administrative court. Therefore, this reading of the parable takes the judge t obeys a Torah judge in the customary courts. Scott takes the description seriously because it marks the judge as one of the urban elite. While it is inherently more probable that Torah adjudicators would have been located in urban areas rather than in the nucleated villages, it is not clear that they were found only in major cities. Herbert Danby interprets property to mean, "disputes arise out of loans, inheritances, sales and the like.” Because the claimant is identified as a widow, it makes sense to infer that her case concerns her inheritance rights. A widow was in a particularly vulnerable situation, and for that very reason, she was a target for exploitation. This may explain why the widow was the subject of such a concern in the Torah and Prophets. God promises to hear the voices of the widows and orphans as surely as God heard the cry of the people in Slavery in Egypt. In light of the material on the role of law in agrarian societies, the hiatus between the justice of the Torah and t he practical workings of everyday injustice may be clearer. Bailey believed that the parable makes the following three assumptions: 1. the widow is in the right (and being denied justice) 2. For some reason the judge does not want to serve her (she has paid no bribes?)3. The judge prefers to favor her adversary (either the adversary is influential or he has paid bribes). The parable poses a dilemma. A desperate widow is caught in the usual power play accompanying her husband's death, and she is further enmeshed in the complexities of a Torah court. At first glance she appears hopeless. Everyone knows that the court will decide in favor of the party offering the most appropriate emolument that is bribe. Her reward is justice at the gate. She was able to analyze her limit situation and design a limit action that broke the spell of inevitability cast by the ruling elites.


The problem is that the core does not seem to have any meaning w/o them(characters). The judge is giving into a pestering widow who has worn him down is hardly deep or novel.
SECONDARY PARABLE CORE:
3 structures of sorts to the attached applications...exclamation: "listen to what the unjust Judge says!"....2 rhetorical ?'s: "and will not God grant justice to his chosen ones who cry out to him day and night?" "will he delay long in helping them?".....emphatic pronouncement: "I tell you, he will quickly grant justice to them."
The prospects of her visits makes the judge finally give in. If the parable gives the lesson that God answers prayers swiftly, why would the judge ever give the widow what she wants. Joseph Fitzmyer's character analysis: the judge is irresponsible and dangerous person. The author of the parable expected the listeners to percieve the judge in a completely negative way as devoid of both pretas and humanitas. are believed to have been jealous or greedy people in a previous life. ... Pretas dwell in the waste and desert places of the earth. Humanitas includes humanism and humanitarianism.
Judicial system was closed circle of ambitious elites whose attentions were trained on amassing greater wealth and increasing personal pretige. Judges corruption went w/o public dennciation. Ambition motivated judges especially lower level judges. Lowly judges needed powerful friends. Non elites (widows) outside wealthy/prestigious circle. Widows > justice often denied > VULNERABLE. the widow is shameless. Her continual coming brings about indication-not the justice of her cause or the judges humor. Womens "Natural Condition" belonged in the domestic private sphere of the home, not in the public male domain of the courts. Roman culture > intolerant in womens involvement in the courts. Widow=BOLD.
The corruption of the court made it the place or last resort to seek justice. Resolves disputes by meatings. Strongest are the best able to help themselves, weak defenseless are disadvantaged. Systems must work to reinforce the rights of those who are most powerful. Widow that she has no regard at all for social rules that would keep her invisible. Blow to the face to convey the metaphor for lifes sudden assults and suffering. The widow could blacken the judges face by spreading rumours about him, namely that he could not hear her case as he was obliged to her adversary. Judge fears what may happen as widow comes in to him, not when she leaves.
Widow meek and humble. Treatment of widow is conventional. Widow is socially weak. Judge fears acts of violence by woman. Really he just deals with her so she stops whining to him. Widow actions startling, boldly facing the judge. Judge not scared, he simple wants to rid her.
Widow is fiesty and frustrated. She can up set his selfish and vain world. Judge possibly scared to get black eye b/c he then would be taken as a joke. She is outside the system and he is a slave to it. Widow free while the judge is always paranoid about falling off his pedistool. People outside the system are in the Kingdom of God while judge is oppressed by it.