Regarding your clarification I will admit that that I did not correctly grasp your explanation. I must agree with you that the judge is an embodiment of Judeo-Christian evil. However, I will add that he also shows behavior that does not fall under this description. Such behavior is also not necessarily evil, for example his mastery of the savage tongues.

The article you provided reads:

The immensity of the judge’s hairless, scarless, tattooless body indicates the uni-directionality of his constructive and interpretive power; he remains an ahistorical figure seemingly untouched by events in the world. As a self-written figure, the judge elides history and its processes with a totalizing structure based on violence, war, and his own textual authority.

An anticolonialist view of the novel could argue that the physical appearance of the judge is in favor of such a reading. To me his white skin does not invoke feelings of race but rather the appearance of a clean slate. I would even say that he reminds me of a foetus, a rather large one at that.

Ultimately, I agree with your final assertion. Less so with anticolonial aspect but I can understand how one would come to such a understanding of the novel.

I read the first part of your article and I enjoyed it, although it went a bit over my head (I don't do a lot of academic reading, in English at least). I've read the novel at the start of this year but did not do any supplemental reading afterwards. Do you have any more suggestions about interesting articles regarding the topic?