The Politics of Ear Mutilation: Cropping an Enslaved Person in the Gospel Passion Narratives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".