MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282037609 · doi:10.1177/03090892211061177

Eglon’s Fat and Ehud’s Oracle: A Reconsideration of Humour in Judges 3.12–30

2022· article· en· W4282037609 on OpenAlexaff
Ryan D. Schroeder

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for the Study of the Old Testament · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiteratureJokeArgument (complex analysis)EliteDivinationOracleArtPhilosophyHistoryPoliticsLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Judg. 3.12–30 details the assassination of King Eglon of Moab by the Benjaminite Ehud ben Gera. Many scholars insist that the story was originally meant to be funny, contending that the text casts Eglon (i.e. ‘Little Calf’) humorously as a slaughtered bovine. Indeed, some regard the text as ‘satire’, though there remains no consensus as to what, exactly, constitutes the butt of the joke. In this article, I argue that Eglon’s fat and Ehud’s feigned oracle work together to form a comical critique of foreign rulers and their reliance on divination. The argument draws on Victor Raskin’s semantic theory of verbal humour along with a re-examination of fat on elite male bodies in the Hebrew Bible and the practice of ancient oracle giving, as reflected in cuneiform sources. I thus aim to elucidate ways the text would have registered as humorous and meaningful for an ancient West Asian audience.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.046
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal for the Study of the Old TestamentSame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207