Parable Draft #1

According to Dr. Cameron Freeman, what appears to be a fearless judge is really a victim of the widow's persistent demands, while what appears to be the annoying pleas of a widowed victim is really a fearless demand for justice.[1] Or again, what initially seems to be the fearless refusal of a defiant judge is really the worn out delivery of a widow's justice, while what appears to be a worn out pleas of a widow for justice, is really the fearless stance of one who is defiant and refuses to back down, is the theory of Dr. Freeman. [2] What appears to be strong is really weak, and what appears to be weak is really strong. The idea of a judge finally giving in to a pestering widow is hardly profound. Recent scholarly research, however, overturns that judgment when it becomes clear that women were not to frequent the male world of the courts. Thus the widow's frequent visits together with her brief and abrupt command to the judge combine to convey the image of a feisty widow rather than the conventionally meek and subservient role assumed for her. As a result, a long-standing discomfort over how to render the Greek in the judge's stated reasons for granting her justice, says Cotter. [3] 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. 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.[4] The judge is 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. 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.[5] This may explain why the widow was the subject of such a concern in the Torah and Prophets.. 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?). The author of the parable expected the listeners to perceive the judge in a completely negative way as devoid of both pretas and humanities.


[1] Dr. Cameron Freeman, "The Paradoxical Teachings of the Historical Jesus." Oct. 2007.Renew Theology. <http://www.renewtheology.org/paperCFreeman1007.htm>.

[2] Freeman, "The Paradoxical Teachings of the Historical Jesus."
[3] Wendy Cotter, New Testament Studies (Cambridge University Press Copyright © Cambridge University Press, 2005), 51: 328-343 Cambridge University Press.

[4] Herzog..
[5] Herzog…