^{page 178 note 1} Plummer, A., Critical and Exegetical Commentary…S. Luke (Edinburgh, 1901), p. 411 ff.Google Scholar; Jülicher, A., Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, II (Tübingen, 1910), 276–90Google Scholar; Buzy, D., ‘Le juge inique,’ R.B. XXXIX (1930), 378–91Google Scholar; Bornhäuser, K., Studien z. Sondergut des Lukas (Gütersloh, 1934), pp. 161–70Google Scholar; B. T. D. Smith (below, p. 180 n. 2); Michaelis, W., Das hochzeitliche Kleid (Berlin, 1939), pp. 251–62Google Scholar; Spicq, C., ‘La parabole de la Veuve obstinée et du Juge inerte, aux décisions impromptues,’ R.B. LXVIII (1961), 68–90Google Scholar; Delling, G., ‘Das Gleichnis vom gottlosen Richter,’ Z.N.T.W. LIII (1962), 1–25Google Scholar; Cranfield, C. E. B., ‘The parable of the Unjust Judge and the Eschatology of Luke-Acts,’ Scot. J. Theol. XVI (1963), 297–301Google Scholar; Jeremias, J., Parables of Jesus (London, 1963), pp. 48, 153–7Google Scholar; Jones, G. V., The Art and Truth of the Parables (London, 1964), pp. 86–7Google Scholar; Grundmann, W., Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Berlin, 1964), pp. 345–8Google Scholar; Linnemann, E., Parables of Jesus (London, 1966)Google Scholar. I may be permitted to remark that the pericope has a surprising number of ambiguous words, and several contributions, especially those of Jeremias, Spicq, and Delling, go minutely into the linguistic and literary background without reaching convincing conclusions; whereas a knowledge of the cultural background places the primary meanings of those words beyond doubt. As in so many New Testament passages, however, a more secure knowledge of the primary meaning by no means excludes the scope or scopes which the evangelist may have permitted to the secondary meanings. Naturally we must commence with the primary meaning.

^{page 178 note 2} So Jülicher, Bultmann, and many recent critics.

^{page 178 note 3} ‘Suddenly’: Bornhäuser, Spicq, Jeremias, Grundmann. ‘Speedily’: Jülicher, Deissmann, Delling, Linnemann, Cranfield. Feuillet, A. in Davies and Daube, edd., Background of the New Testament (Dodd volume) (Cambridge, 1956), p. 278Google Scholar. Geldenhuys, N., Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (London, 1950), p. 448Google Scholar, amusingly equates έντάΧει with έπιΧρόνον, implying that to an Asian speed implies ‘after a long time’. I find it hard to disagree.

^{page 178 note 4} Schlatter, Cf. A., Der Glaube im Neuen Testament, 5th edn (Stuttgart, 1963), pp. 158–9Google Scholar. Note Matt. viii. 10, Luke vii. 9, and cf. Luke xxii. 32 (Satan!).

^{page 178 note 5} Grässer, E., Das Problem der Parusiever zögerung in den synoptischen Evangelien…, 2nd edn (Berlin, 1960), pp. 36–8.Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 6} So Trench, Notes on the passage. The only approximately reliable translation (and I include Luther's amongst the modern versions) was that of the Rheims version (1582): ‘lest at the last she come and defame me’, Polus, , Synops. IV (1669)Google Scholar, col. 1070. Delitzch's trans. utilizes Job xix. 2.

^{page 179 note 1} Luke xi. 13. Loisy, A., Les évangiles synoptiques, II (Ceffonds, 1908), 189Google Scholar, appropriately shows that Christ is to be the judge, not God, i.e. God judges through Christ (as at John viii. 16, 26, 50; xii. 47, 48). Regarding the Johannine paradox I would suggest that Christ, in the earthly ministry and in the second coming, plays opposing roles: he acts as man's advocate (and thus convicts unbelievers of sin), and later, when advocacy is over, he comes as judge. Yet the player of the two roles is one and the same person.

^{page 179 note 2} Rengstorf, K. H., Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Göttingen, 1962), pp. 205–6Google Scholar. Professor Rengstorf is the only commentator to notice that at 8b Jesus may well have referred to all ‘comings’, including his ministry on earth (cf. Luke xvii. 21; v. 24). Such ambiguities are in order.

^{page 180 note 1} Delitzch, F., Zeits. f. d. gesammte lutherische Theologie u. Kirche, XXXVII (1876), 601.Google Scholar

^{page 180 note 2} Quoted in Smith, B. T. D., The Parables of the Synoptic Gospels (Cambridge, 1937), pp. 148–54Google Scholar. Summarized by Jeremias. The analogy would have been apposite if the woman had been appealing to an administrative (mazālim) judge over the head of a kādi who applied the Quranic law.

^{page 180 note 3} Sherwin-White, A. N., Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford, 1963), pp. 133–4.Google Scholar

^{page 180 note 4} Ps. ix; xii; xxxiv. 15–19; xxxv; xxxvii. 7–13, 33; xxviii. 12–22; xxxxix. xl. 13ff.; xliii. 2; liv; lvi. 1, 4, 9–11; lxix. 4; xcix. 8. Ps. xxvii. 11–12 seems particularly relevant. Prayer is a kind of fight: Rom. xv. 30; Col. iv. 22. Note Ps. Sal. ii. 36 (referred to by Spicq); ότι Χρηστός όκύριοςτοιςέπικαλουμένοις αύτόν έν ύπομονη⁃… See p. 185 n. 3 below.

^{page 180 note 5} Schalit, A., König Herodes, Der Mann u. sein Werk (Berlin, 1969), pp. 148, 223–32Google Scholar. His correction of Sugranyes De Franch at p. 233 n. 303 is important. Chajes, H.-P. at Rev. Etudes Juives, XXXIX (1899), 52Google Scholar speaks of the Jewish judicial administration in a way that must have been true in large measure even before A.D. 70.

^{page 181 note 1} Job XXIX. 11–17.

^{page 181 note 2} SeeLuke xii. 14. The word μεριστής (with its double meaning) is a conscious improvement on Exod. ii. 24.

^{page 181 note 3} Bloch, M., Das Mosaïsch-Talmudische Polizeirecht (Jahresbericht der Landes-Rabbinerschule in Budapest, 1878–1879), pp. 10–14Google Scholar, is important. For the general position: Mitteis, L., Reichsrecht u. Volksrecht… (Leipzig, 1891), pp. 91Google Scholar ff. For the Ptolemaic-Seleucid era, Hengel, M., Judentum u. Hellenismus (Tübingen, 1969)Google Scholar, ch. I. Felten, J., Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, I (Regensburg, 1925), 315–17Google Scholar, is useful.

^{page 181 note 4} Wolff, H. J., Das Justizwesen der Ptolemäer (Munich, 1962)Google Scholar, a work of extraordinary value for our purposes. Greek courts greedily snatched at suits between Egyptians: Pap. Tebt. 1. 5, 217–20.

^{page 182 note 1} Derrett, , Law in the New Testament (London, 1970)Google Scholar, ch. 7. Maimonides, M.T. XIV, v, iii, 10.

^{page 182 note 2} Lenger, M.-T., Corpus des Ordonnances des Ptolémées (Brussels, 1964)Google Scholar, illustrates the material adequately. A. Théodoridès, R.I.D.A. XIV (1967), pp. 107–52.Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 3} Tyan, E., ‘Judicial organisation’, ch. 10 in Khadduri, M. and Libesny, H. J., edd., Law in the Middle East, 1 (Washington, 1955)Google Scholar. Coulson, N. J., Conflicts and Tensions in Islamic Jurisprudence (Chicago, 1969), ch. 4, esp. pp. 66 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 4} Plato, Rep. 405 (trans. Jowett, 3rd edn, III, 92). See p. 184 n. 2 below.

^{page 183 note 1} Lohmeyer, E., Das Evangelium des Matthäus (Göttingen, 1956), p. 124Google Scholar. ει μετ' αύτοῦ is neutral, the meaning being carried by άντιδικος (= ‘defendant’ at P. Oxy. I. 37, Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, ad v.). But the word, meaning simply opponent in a law-suit or a dispute amounting to a law-suit, is ambiguous. The context shows that it must mean ‘defendant’ because the only person with an option is the plaintiff. The defendant having no option is not sinning in being brought before the earthly judge. ύπάγεις suggests that the person addressed has the option, ergo he is the plaintiff. Mishnah B.B. x. 8 (Danby, 382), Derrett, op. cit. p. 34 n. 1.

^{page 183 note 2} άρΧων is any functionary, especially a Jewish customary ‘ruler’ as at Matt. ix. 18 (at Matt. xx. 25 Jesus explains how the non-Jewish ‘rulers’ lack the democratic ethos of the Jews!); Luke xviii. 18. At Luke xxiii. 13 the ‘ruler’ are the (as it were) native chiefs in contrast to the real ruler, Pilate himself. The word does not imply, as it would in a Hellenic context, that they were formally appointed under any constitutional authority.

^{page 183 note 3} Exp. T. LXXVII (1966), 37Google Scholar. Also Allen, W. C., Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Matthew (Edinburgh, 1912), pp. 49–51.Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 4} Schanz, P., Commentar über das Evangelium des heiligen Lucas (Tübingen, 1883), p. 364Google Scholar; Weiss, B., Die Evangelien des Markus u. Lukas (Göttingen, 1901), p. 501Google Scholar; Rengstorf, K. H., Das Evangelium nach Lukas (1962), p. 167Google Scholar (both are translated Richter). It is upon this misunderstanding that interpretations rest such as that of Bultmann, R., History of the Synoptic Tradition (trans. Marsh) (Oxford, 1968), p. 193Google Scholar. Four lands of judicial authority are listed at Sir. xli. 18 (was this a parallel?).

^{page 183 note 5} The celebrated case of Sardar Syedna Taher v. State of Bombay (A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 853) discussed in Derrett, Religion, Law and the State in India (London, 1968), pp. 473 ffGoogle Scholar. A pertinent example of the conflicts between custom and the State's foreign-based law is discussed by P. V. Kane, History of Dharmasastra II, 620. Other examples are given in Derrett, op. cit. pp. 287 nn., 358 n. 3.

^{page 184 note 1} See Ps. Sal. xvii. 20: … καί ό κριτής έν άπειθεία… (this is our ‘unjust’ judge). For ‘Satan's world’ see Ps. ii. 3; Luke iv. 6; xxii. 3, 53; John xii. 31; 2 Cor. iv. 4; Rev. xii. 9.

^{page 184 note 2} The authority is Lev. xxiv. 22. Mekilta on Exod. xxi. 1 (Lauterbach, III, 1–2). To volunteer testimony against a Jew in certain non-Jewish courts merited excommunication after A.D. 130: b. B.K. 113b.

^{page 184 note 3} Vermes, G., The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (London, 1966), pp. 18–29.Google Scholar Excommunication at the hands of non-sectarians is referred to in Luke xxi. 12.

^{page 184 note 4} Mat. xviii. 17 (σοι).

^{page 184 note 5} I Cor. v. 12-vi. 9.

^{page 185 note 1} άδίκων, έξσυθενημένων = non-Christian judges. έλάΧιστος = worldly (cf. Luke xvi. 10). Take άνάξιοι in the sense of ‘above’ (cf. Lucian, Fugit., c. 1; Soph., Oed. Col. 1446). Rom. xii. 19 is in point (cf. Deut. xxxii. 35, 41) and 2 Thess. i 5–12 seems actually to be based on Luke xviii. 1–8. On see Deissmann, A., Light from the Ancient East (London, 1927), p. 117.Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 2} I Cor. v. 4.

^{page 185 note 3} See above p. 180 n. 4. The model is described at I Pet. ii. 23. As plaintiff she should not have gone to law: Matt. xviii. 15–17 (based in part on Lev. xix. 17); as defendant she should have offered no opposition: Matt. v. 40. The just ‘restores which he took not away’: Ps. lxix. 4. This teaching improves upon Sir. x. 6: .

^{page 185 note 4} The Hindu view. Nārada refers disputes between father and son to an ex officio jurisdiction called prakirnaka. On husband and wife see Rocher, L. in Anderson, J. N. D., ed., Family Law in Asia and Africa (London, 1968), at pp. 110–13Google Scholar. Those who give evidence in the cases which are forbidden by the holy law (but which are nevertheless heard under the State's current system of judicature) are subject to social penalties. And so is the son who litigates with his father (Yama and other authorities cited by Lakshmīdhara, , K. K. T., Śrāddhak. 83, 85, 89).Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 5} B. Talmud, San. 6b (Sonc. trans. 21). The Tosefta relates the opinion of R. Judah b. Karha (2nd cent.): Zech. viii. 16 exhorts litigants in money matters to achieve a compromise by arbitration. So Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkot Sanh. XXII. 4 (trans. Hershman, , Book of Judges, New Haven, 1949, p. 66)Google Scholar; Jacob b. Asher, Turim in Tur Hoshen Mishpat xii, followed in Joseph Caro's Shulhan Aruch. R. Jacob b. Asher saw a command to attempt compromises, before proceeding to execute judgement, in the letters of the word ha-mishpatiym at Exod. xxi. 1. For arbitration in Jewish law see Job ix. 33 (μεσίτης), and Isa. iii. 6 (cf. Isa. i. 23). Cohen, B., Jewish and Roman Law, II (N.Y. 1966), 651–709.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 1} Theologians have not savoured the range of meanings, even though Delling (Z.N.T.W. LIII (1962), 8 n. 32) notices Preisigke's translation of έκδίκησις = punishment, which is an addition to the range noticed in Liddell-Scott-Jones and Moulton-Milligan. Schlatter, A. (Das Evangelium des Lukas, Stuttgart, 1931, pp. 394–8)Google Scholar does cite Jos. Ant. VII. 294 and XVII. 242 for secular instances of ‘vengeance’. Hauck, F., Das Evangelium des Lukas (Leipzig, 1934), pp. 219–20Google Scholar, takes the word to imply rather justice than vengeance. The strong final esoteric overtones of Sir. xxxv. 12–20, Wis. xii. 1–27, and the meaning ‘sentence’ at Sir. xlviii. 7 are relevant. Surely the word was chosen, by Luke, to convey at one and the same time the typical cry of the injured petitioner on the secular level (see Taubenschlag, R., Law of Greco-Roman Egypt (N. Y. 1944), p. 335Google Scholar n. 65: πρός τό άκόλουθον γείνεσθαι καί τυχείν με τῆς δεούσης έγδικίας) with the Septuagintal meaning, ‘avenge, take vengeance/punish’ (59 times as against the ‘visit/punish’ meaning which appears 29 times). See especially Sir. v. 7; vii. 17; xxviii. I.

^{page 186 note 2} Mishnah, Avot IV. 22.

^{page 186 note 3} Personal considerations figured: Matt. xxv. 32–41.

^{page 186 note 4} Driver, G. R., Aramaic Documents of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford, 1954), p. 14Google Scholar. In ancient civilizations justice¹ = righteousness and justice² = exercise of royal administrative jurisdiction were often carefully distinguished. In India the dichotomy led to the development of two distinct sciences, each of which has its own scope, yet both must be studied by administrators: Lingat, R., Les sources du droit dans le système traditionnel de l' Inde (Paris/The Hague, 1967)Google Scholar, pt. 2, ch. 3.

^{page 187 note 1} Ps. vii. 11; lxxxvi. 3; lxxxviii. 1.

^{page 187 note 2} Ps. xciv. 1; cxlix. 7; Nah. i. 2; Mic. v. 15; Isa. xxxv. 4; xlvii. 3; Jer. li. 36; Ezek. xxv. 14, 17.

^{page 187 note 3} Cf. Job vi. 23; Ps. xciv; cxl. 12; cxlvi.

^{page 187 note 4} Precisely as at Jer. 1. 34 (M.T. = xxvii. 34 LXX); li. 36.

^{page 187 note 5} Mishnah, tractate Ketubot. See e.g. Ket. IV. 12 (Danby, The Mishnah, p. 251).

^{page 188 note 1} Mark xii. 40; Luke xx. 47, to be studied in the light of Isa. i. 23. Note κριμα. Luke's νομικός is appropriate. Midrash on Psalms, Ps. 15, §5 (Braude, 1, 192). Ziegler, I., Königsgleichnisse, pp. 98–9, 112Google Scholar (on advocates).

^{page 188 note 2} A widow needed an έκδικος (see Moulton and Milligan s.v.)! Wolff, op. cit. p. 135 and n. 42. R. Taubenschlag, op. cit. para. 54. For others than widows see b. Shab. 32a = Sonc. trans. 146–7 (quoting Isa. xxxiii. 23). See Philo, , Spec. Leg. IV. 179Google Scholar (Colson, VIII, 118), commenting upon Deut. x. 17, 18 Israel is always an ‘orphan’.

^{page 188 note 3} Kleinknecht, H. and others, Wrath (London, 1964), p. 123.Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 4} Riesenfeld, H., in Blinzler–Kuss–Mussner, edd., Fests. J. Schmid (Regensburg, 1963), pp. 214–17.Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 1} For the history, Lella, A. A. Di, The Hebrew Text of Sirach (The Hague, 1966), p. 150Google Scholar. For the text of Sir. xxxv. 12–19 see Lévi, I., The Hebrew Text of the Book of Ecclesiasticus (Leiden, 1904), pp. 36–7Google Scholar; Schechter, S. and Taylor, C., The Wisdom of Ben Sira (Cambridge, 1899), p. xliGoogle Scholar. Rüger, H. P., Text und Textform im hebräischen Sirach (1970, B.Z.A.W. 112)Google Scholar does not consider our passage.

^{page 189 note 2} Yadin, Y., The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada (Jerusalem, 1965), esp. p. 7Google Scholar. For the technique of the LXX translator see the most revealing notes in Sanders, J. A., The Psalms Scroll of Qumrân Cave II (Oxford, 1965), pp. 79 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 3} Isa. xxvi. 20. Ps. xl. 17; lxx. 5; lxxi. 12; cxliii. 7.

^{page 189 note 4} The Messiah (Isa. ix. 5) or God (Ps. xxiv. 8; Is. x. 21; Jer. xxxii. 18)?

^{page 189 note 5} from , which the reviser amended to the commonplace ; (multiplies), since the metaphor was too striking, and perhaps difficult.

^{page 189 note 6} Hab. ii. 3.

^{page 190 note 1} p. Hag. II, fol. 77d. Jastrow, , Dict. 1551Google Scholar. Cf. Lam. iv. 8; v. 10; Jer. viii. 21; and perhaps Job. xxx. 30. Also Joel. ii. 6; Nah. ii. 10 (sc. like a burnt pot). Mr. J. N. Postgate tells me that the contexts of the two known examples of faces ‘becoming black’ in Akkadian permit a translation ‘be put to shame’ without establishing it.

^{page 190 note 2} Q. iii. 100 (Arberry, Koran Interpreted (1964), p. 59); xvi. 60 (p. 264) (and xliii. 15 (p. 506)); xxxix. 60 (p. 478); cf. xxxv. 25 (p. 447). Iswadda wajhuhu, ‘he was put to shame’.

^{page 190 note 3} Rū-ye main siyāh shod, ‘I am disgraced’, rū-yi siy¯h, ‘shame’; rū-yi sepīd (‘white face’), ‘honour’; āb-i rū (‘brightness of face’), ‘unimpaired honour’.

^{page 190 note 4} Yüzüm kara oldu (‘my face has become black’), ‘my esteem had been lowered’, ‘I am degrade’ (Hindi). Avan mukam karuttadu (‘his face became back’), ‘he felt insulted’ (Tamil). In Dravidian languages (from which Burmese seems to have adopted the idiom) the face is envisaged as if smeared with charcoal or soot, a secondary development (avan en mukattil kariyai puciviṭṭān, ‘he made me ashamed’, Tamil). The victim feels sudden shame at detection in crime, or acute disappointment (which, by coincidence, fits the eschatological context of the Quranic instances of darkened faces). Dravidian evidence is particularly significant, as the vast majority of speakers are of very dark complexion already. In Malay the same idiom exists. ‘To make someone's face black’ ? ‘to insult’: see Skinner, C., ed., Shair Perang Mengkasar (The Hague, 1963), p. 284Google Scholar, a reference I owe to the kindness of Dr J. Knappert, Indian English: Ollivant, A., Old For Ever (London, 1923), pp. 256–7.Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 5} Merā mūh kāla ho gāya (‘my face has become black’), ‘my esteem had been lowered’, ‘I am degraded’ (Hindi). Avan mukam karuttadu (‘his face became black’), ‘he felt insulted’ (Tamil). In Dravidian languages (from which Burmese seems to have adopted the idiom) the face is envisaged as if smeared with charcoal or soot, a secondary development (avan en mukattil kariyai pucivittān, ‘he made me ashamed’, Tamil). The victim feels sudden shame at detection in crime, or acute disappointment (which, by coincidence, fits the eschatological context of the Quranic instances of darkened faces). Dravidian evidence is particularly significant, as the vast majority of speakers are of very dark complexion already. In Malay the same idiom exists. ‘To make someone's face black’ = ‘to insult’: see Skinner, C., ed., Shair Perang Mengkasar (The Hague, 1963), p. 284Google Scholar, a reference I owe to the kindness of DrKnappert, J.. Indian English: Ollivant, A., Old For Ever (London, 1923), pp. 256–7.Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 6} Thus έρχομένη is correct after all, and έλθούσα (which many critics have suspected to have been better Greek) would have been wrong.

^{page 191 note 1} Deut. i. 17; xvi. 19. Great attention should be paid to the principle at Lev. xix. 15, also Exod. xxiii. 3, which recurs in the Sirach passage with which we are concerned. Justice should not be tempered out of sympathy for the ‘poor’. On the principle of not respecting persons see Prov. xxiv. 23; xxviii. 21; 2 Sam. xiv. 14; 2 Ch. xix. 7; Acts x. 34; Rom. ii. 11; Eph. vi. 9; Col. iii. 25; Jas. ii. 1; I Pet. i. 17. Wis. vi. 6–8 is most relevant to our parable.

^{page 191 note 2} Exod. xxxii. 12; Deut. ix. 28; Ps. lxxiv. 22.

^{page 191 note 3} Ezek. xxxvi. 21–3; xxxviii. 27; xxxix. 7; Ps. ix. 168; xxxi. 3; liv. 1; lxxix. 9; cix. 21; cxliii. 11; Jer. xvi. 21; Mic. vi. 5; Lev. xix. 2; Midr. Rabbah Lev. xxiv. 1 = Sonc. trans. IV, 304.

^{page 191 note 4} Ps. xxxvii. 5–6, 39–40.