MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401037746 · doi:10.1177/0142064x241246222

The Politics of Ear Mutilation: Cropping an Enslaved Person in the Gospel Passion Narratives

2024· article· en· W4401037746 on OpenAlexaff
Isaac T. Soon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for the Study of the New Testament · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Literature and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPassionGospelNarrativePoliticsCroppingLiteratureHistorySociologyArtGender studiesPolitical sciencePsychologyLawSocial psychologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article challenges a slaveholder perspective of the treatment of the high priest’s enslaved agent in the canonical gospels. It seeks to demonstrate how ancient traditions and practices of ear cropping and facial mutilation, especially of enslaved folks, give insight into the significance of the enslaved agent’s treatment in the gospels. Far from being a mere plot device, the enslaved person who is maimed is a site of political knowledge that has simultaneous implications for our understanding of the enslaved agent themselves, the mutilating disciple, and Jesus. While the vast majority of interpreters of the passage view the maiming of Malchus’s ear as unimportant, a close analysis of contexts where ears are mutilated, maimed, and cropped provides a useful framework for rereading the episode in each of the gospels. After analyzing the contexts of ear cropping, from ancient Southwest Asia to second-century literature, I re-read each version of the episode from a narrative-critical point of view. In light of ancient accounts of cropping and mutilation, I find that the mutilating disciple’s behavior in the gospels was not heroic, that the enslaved person retains no agency, and that Jesus is complicit in the disciple’s actions against the high-priest’s agent.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.564
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal for the Study of the New TestamentSame topicMedieval Literature and HistoryFrench-language works237,207