Unlike the Synoptic gospels, John does not contain a commissioning by Jesus to his disciples to "go make disciples of all nations, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matt 28:19). Information from and about Jesus, when it is spread, is accomplished through a "gossip network" to select individuals (Neyrey 1994). And although Jesus declares before one of his judges, "I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple. . .I have said nothing in secret" (John 18:20), that hardly explains the intricate patterns of double-meaning words, irony, lying, deception and misunderstanding and actual hiding in the Fourth Gospel.

Sometimes information about Jesus is communicated "secretly" (lathra, 11:28). People urge Jesus not to act in secrecy, but to act "publicly" (parrêsia, 7:4) or to speak "publicly" (10:24; Peterson 49-52), which urging he rejects (Giblin). When there is ambiguity, Jesus occasionally speaks "publicly" to clear up misunderstandings (11:14; 16:25, 29). His speaking "publicly" is judged proof of his orthodoxy (7:13, 26; van Unnik ).

Yet even when he speaks in public, more often than not people misunderstand his words. In addition to the lexicon of double-meaning terms used by Jesus (Richard), we find a repetitive pattern of "statement-misunderstanding-clarification." Jesus states something which hearers invariably misunderstand, which prompts Jesus to speak clarifying words, which may or may not be understood (Leroy). His "parables" are not understood, either by the crowds (10:6) or by his disciples (16:25).

Data such as these invite a fuller investigation of the numerous and significant patterns of "information control" in the Fourth Gospel. Once we start to pull back the veil, we notice numerous instances of hiding-revealing, secrecy, ambiguity and even lying. The following is an attempt to catalogue the primary and related instances of secrecy and "information control" in the document.

1.1 Outright Secrecy

1.1.1 Hiding. On occasion, Jesus "hides himself." After revealing great revelations in 8:56 and 58, Jesus "hid himself" as his enemies took up stones to throw at him (8:59). A strategic move, no doubt, but one fraught with ambiguity when compared with Jesus' revelation to the crowd in 12:27-35 and his subsequent "hiding himself from them" (12:36) when there was no death threat. He warned his audience, "The light is with you a little longer. Walk while you have the light" (12:35). But the light does not last long, for "when Jesus had said this, he departed and hid himself from them" (12:36b). Other characters likewise "hide" themselves: Nicodemus comes secretly to Jesus at night to avoid detection (3:2; 19:39; de Jonge ); others attracted to Jesus disguised their affiliation (12:42; 19:38). Moreover, when Judas asks "Why is it that you will manifest yourself to us and not to the world?" (14:22), his remark implies that Jesus is revealing something to them, but hiding it from others. Besides examples of Jesus or others hiding themselves (kryptein), the author implies that God also hides things from the crowds (kalyptein, 12:38) and blinds them (12:40; book on Isa 6:9).

1.1.2 Lying. It does not bother us that Jesus accuses others of lying (8:44, 55), but what of Jesus' own lies. Although Giblin ( ) has tried to soften the impact of the pattern in 7:1-9, Jesus appears to lie to his unbelieving brothers: "I am not going to this feast" (7:8). Having said this, "He also went up. . .not publicly, but in private" (7:10). Lying in the Bible should not startle us after the pioneering work of John Pilch (Listening). Those who read the Johannine gospel and letters were quite familiar with accusations of lying (1 John 2:21, 27; 4:1).

1.1.3 Evasive Speech. When the parents of the man born blind are interrogated, they acknowledge that they "know" some things and "do not know" others (9:21). The author interprets their speech as purposeful evasion: "His parents said this because they feared the Jews" (9:22).

1.1.4 Deception. Jesus' enemies are convinced that he is a deceiver who intentionally leads the people astray. While some hang on Jesus words, others are convinced that "he is leading the people stray" (planai, 7:12). When the soldiers sent out to apprehend him return with praise of his words, the Pharisees cite this as another example of deception: "Are you led astray, you also?" (peplanêsthe, 7:47).

1.2 "In the Know/NOT in the Know." Throughout the Fourth Gospel, we are endlessly told about people who do not know important information about Jesus, beginning with the Baptizer (1:31, 33). There appears to be no particular stigma attached to people at the beginning of stories who are "not in the know," provided that by the story's end they are "in the know." But we frequently find people divided into polarities in terms of "knowing" and "not knowing, a pattern which provides the readers with a criterion for judging these narrative characters. For example, some "know" that Jesus is a sinner, whereas others "do not know this" (9:24-25; see 2:9). Others claim to "know" where Jesus comes from, but they are proved to be "not in the know" (7:27-28). After examining the numerous instances of this semantic pattern, we find that it tends to function in three ways: (1) insiders, who are "in the know," are separated from outsiders, who are "not in the know"; (2) some claim to be "in the know," but their knowledge is erroneous, thus proving them to be outsiders; (3) the information most highly valued is accurate knowledge of whence Jesus comes and whither he goes (Neyrey Jn 3; other).

People regularly ask questions of Jesus. Those who question presumably are "not in the know." Yet not all questions are answered, so that some remain "not in the know" (3:5-10; Neyrey III), while others get straight answers (1:19-23; 9:2-3; 13:23-26).

1.3 How Does One Get to Know? Put most simply, in the Fourth Gospel one needs to be told or led to the truth. Just as all "power" is given from above (19:11), so too is "knowledge." The narrative patterns describing how one gets to know are both numerous and intricate.

1.1 Statement/Misunderstanding/Clarification (Maybe). Readers of the Fourth Gospel are quickly introducted to the extremely repetitive pattern in the gospel of "statement-misunderstanding-clarification" (Leroy; Neyrey Ideol).

Jesus states something, which invariably is misunderstood, after which he clarifies his misunderstood remark. Sometimes the pattern indicates progressive revelation of secrets and so results in the person once "not in the know" receiving a christophany (4:26) or special information (11:13-15 & 25-26). But the converse also occurs: some who misunderstand Jesus' statement never come "into the know" or never have their questions answered, and so are confirmed as outsiders who are "not in the know" (3:3-10; 6:41-48; 8:21-30). Thus Jesus' clarifications may be either revelations or veils, but in all cases they are vintage "information control."

1.2 Revealers. Although God remains directly "unknown" by all but Jesus, for "no one has ever seen God" (1:18; 5:37; 6:46), nevertheless God reveals secrets to select people, such as John the Baptizer (1:31 and 33) and Jesus (1:18; 3:32-34). They in turn communicate this knowledge to select disciples.

Jesus is the revealer par excellence. He gives special "christophanies" of himself to select people: the Samaritan woman (4:25-26), the man born blind (9:35-36), Mary Magdalene (20:16-17), his "brethren" (20:19-21), Thomas (20:26-29), the disciples fishing (21:4-7, 12), and Peter (21:15-19). Jesus, moreover, reveals the secret meaning of events to the inner circle (9:2-3), identifies his traitor to his most intimate associate (13:23-26), tells only his disciples about "his way" (14:4-6; Segovia article) and about God (14:7-11). To Mary Magdalene Jesus reveals the ultimate secret which is to be shared only with the inner circle, "my brethren," (20:17). Finally, we note that Jesus makes a number of prophecies, but only to select disciples (13:38; 18:8-9); they may not be understood at first (2:19) but eventually come to light (2:21-22; 12:12-16).

1.3 Gossip Network. Knowledge int he Fourth Gospel is always mediated to others and thus controlled. Some come to know because they are "taught by God" (6:45); others are enlightened by the "spirit of truth" (14:26; 16:13-14). Still others have Jesus as revealer and catechist. Yet the Fourth Gospel contains a curious pattern, which in sociological jargon may be labelled the "gossip network" (Neyrey Wrong). In a media-less world, the ordinary means of information dissemination is oral communication (see 18:34). But we should not imagine that every one tells all they know to everybody. Distinctive patterns of communication can be discovered, such that only certain persons tell select others some of what they know.

The beginning and ending of the Fourth Gospel illustrate the "gossip network" or the controlled flow of information. At the beginning, one disciple tells another about Jesus (1:35-51; Neyrey Revolt); the person informed is either a kin to or a village neighbor of the informer. The information is not told to all in the marketplace. At the end of the story, Mary Magdalene takes a specific word to select people, "Go to 'my brethren' and say to them..." (20:17); later these "brethren" tell Thomas about Jesus (20:24). Within these framing events, the Samaritan woman tells only her villagers about Jesus (4:28-30); Martha and Mary tell Jesus about Lazarus (11:3); Martha tells Mary that Jesus summons her (11;28); the Greeks who wish to see Jesus first tell Philip, who then tells Andrew, who then leads them to Jesus (12:21-22). Mary Magdalene tells the disciples of the empty tomb (20:2) and the Beloved Disciple tells Peter that the figure on the shore is "the Lord" (21:7). Thus, whatever else we make of this pattern, information about Jesus or from him is always channeled to others through a select and restricted network.

1.4 Asides and Footnotes. If characters in the gospel reveal information to others, the readers (or hearers) are treated by the author to special information not known to the narrative characters. Besides the translation of certain Semitic terms into Greek (1:38, 41, 42; 4:25; 5:2; 9:7; 19:13, 17; 20:16), we are given "footnotes" and "asides" (O'Rourke). As Tenny has shown, some of these inform the reader of (1) times and places (6:4; 7:2; 9:14; 10:22-23; 11:17), (2) customs (4:9; 19:40), (3) recollections of the disciples (2:22; 12:16), (4) explanations of actions or situations (2:9; 4:2; 7:5, 39; 11:51; 12:6; 19:36-37; 21:19), (5) identification of persons (6:71; 7:50; 11:2; 18:10, 14, 40; 19:38-39), and (6) indications of what Jesus knows (2:24-25; 6:6; 13:1, 3). The narrator, who ostensibly shares all of the above secrets, also gives special information about himself to this select audience (1:14b; 19:35; 21:24-25); on one occasion he corrects a popular error (21:22-23). Thus secrets are shared only with special people; information is carefully controlled.

1.5 Forensic Examination of Testimony. The predominant literary-rhetorical form in this gospel is indubitably the forensic trial, both in its Jewish and Roman forms. Trials of Jesus or his disciples occur in chs 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 18-19 (Neyrey Revolt/Honor). Two key elements of the trial are the judge's cognitio or examination of the accused and the interrogation of witnesses (see also 1:19-27; Harvey). In both, people are seeking information (i.e., the testimony of witnesses) or evaluating proofs (i.e., the probative value of "signs" or "works"). As I have shown, on occasion the tables are turned and Jesus becomes the judge instead of the accused (Neyrey: John 8); he sifts through the testimony of would-be disciples to expose their lies (8:31ff, 44, 55). Nevertheless on the narrative level, the typical mechanism for getting information seems to be the forensic trial in all its permutations.

1.4 Why Are Some "NOT in the Know"? Why aren't some or most "in the know"? Jesus and the author offer us a variety of reasons, which, while offensive to politically correct ears, are not strange in a sectarian environment. We are told that some prefer the darkness to the light (3:19-20). Moreover, although Jesus came into the world as its light (1: ; Peterson 72-75), he also affirms that he came so "that those who do not see may see and that those who see may become blind" (9:39). Thus some will not or cannot see (see 12:39-40); some, in fact, "are blinded" (Evans). In fact, no one can "know" Jesus "unless it is granted him by the Father" (6:56), which disturbingly suggests that many of those "not in the know" are not thus called and so have "knowledge" withheld from them (6:45). Some, alas, are born of flesh and cannot know spirit things (3:6); if they cannot even understand the "earthly" things Jesus says, how can they understand "heavenly" things (3:12). They are "from below" and are "of this world," not "from above" and "not of this world (8:24); they are, then, aliens to "the world of knowledge."

1.5 Irony. Paul Duke recently published an excellent study of irony in the Fourth Gospel, from which we glean the following important points for this study. At the root of the word "irony" is the term eirôn, a person who slyly pretended to be less than he really was. As Duke remarks, "The eirôn wore a mask of goodwill which concealed enmity. He was a grinning fox, a scoundrel not to be trusted" (Duke 8). Quintilian echoes the tradition by identifying Socrates as the archetypal eirôn: "He was called eirôn because he assumed the character of an ignorant man, and affected to be the admirer of other men's wisdom" (Inst. Orat. IX.ii.46). Thus in one stream of the material, an "ironic" figure is a deceiver. Information is being controlled.

When we turn to "dramatic irony," the staple of Greek tragedy, the issue of ignorance and knowledge takes center stage. Dramatic Irony involves a situation in a play or narrative in which the audience shares with the author knowledge of which a character is ignorant: the character acts in a way grossly inappropriate to the actual circumstances or expects the opposite of what fate holds in store, or says something that anticipates the actual outcome, but not at all in the way he means it (Duke 12).

Thus all irony (1) is a double-layered or two-storied phenomenon, (2) which presents some kind of opposition between the two levels, and (3) which contains an element of unawareness or ignorance (Duke 13).

The third element most pertains to our examination of secrecy in the Fourth Gospel, for it articulates the phenomenon we are examining, namely, some people are "in the know" (author and readers), while most of the narrative characters are "not in the know." Duke's classification of ironic remarks in the Fourth Gospel includes:

1. False Claims to Knowledge (6:42; 7:27, 41-42; 9:29)

2. False Assumptions (4:12; 7:15; 8:53, 57)

Accusations

- demon possession (7:20; 8:48, 52; 10:20)

- other (8:41; 9:16, 24; 18:30)

3. Suggestions of belief (7:26, 47-48, 52; 9:27)

5. Unconscious prophecy and testmony (2:10; 7:3-4, 35-36; 8:22; 11:48, 49-50; 12:19).

Through the use of irony, the author controls information. The author knows more than the characters in the narrative; he relaxes his control to let the readers join in his special knowledge, whereas the "ignorant" narrative characters always have information withheld from them. Thus irony directly serves the process of information control.

1.6 The Phenomenon of Ambiguity. Besides informing the readers about who knows what, the Fourth Gospel also reminds us that a fundamental ambiguity permeates the world of Jesus and his disciples. Jesus performs several remarkable healings; but since they occur on the Sabbath (5:9-11; 9:14), they apparently violate the sabbath laws, despite Jesus' rationalization for his behavior (7:21-23). In the face of this ambiguity, Jesus demands that his critics not "judge according to appearances" (7:24; see 8:15).

Jesus remains ambiguous to the crowds. On many occasions we are told that they were divided over him, some acclaiming him and others denouncing him (7:12-13, 27 and 31, 40-41; 9:16-17, 28-34; 10:19-21; 11:35; 12:29). He is not, however, ambiguous to some, who think that they have unmasked his deception (7:32, 47-48).

Many people in the Fourth Gospel "think they know" (dokeô) something. The disciples, who are insiders, "think" they know what Jesus means when he said "Lazarus is asleep" (11:11-13); some "think" they know why Judas leaves the supper (13:29); Mary Magdalene "thinks" that she sees a gardener beside the tomb (20:15). In each case these people are mistaken by appearances. They might take Jesus' words too literally and miss the secret inner meaning; it seems traditional that disciples not recognize the risen Jesus, even though they look right at him. How important, then, is the report that one special disciple sees through appearances and recognizes Jesus (21:7). On the other hand, Jesus criticizes the way outsiders "think": they search the scriptures and "think" they are finding life (5:39); they "think" that Moses will always be their advocate (5:45); they "think" that by killing Jesus' disciples they will honor God (16:2). Appearances, then, are deceiving; one cannot tell a book by its cover or persons by the clothes they wear.

In a world of ambiguity and appearances, we are urged to expect deception and deceivers. This alerts us to the importance of strategies for unmasking deceivers and unveiling deception. Enter spies! Begin sifting information! Interrogate witnesses!

1.7 Who Knows Everything? In a world where information is controlled, players (at least readers/hearers) need clues about who knows what? Since information/knowledge is the coin of the realm, players want to attach themselves to those "in the know." Jesus, of course, stands out as the most knowledgeable person in the narrative.

No commentator can claim to explain the Fourth Gospel without some remarks on Jesus, the logos who reveals. Since this material is presumably well known, it need not be repeated here, except to give salience to certain aspects of Jesus "teacher" and "revealer."

To begin with, we note the rich and varied terminology used to describe Jesus' imparting of information to others:

anaggelô: 4:25 (16:15)

gnôrizô: 15:15; 17:26

deiknymi: 10:32; 14:8-9; 20:20

emphainô: 14:21-22

exêgeomai: 1:18

sêmainô: 12:33; 18:32; 21:19

phaneroô: 2:11; 74; 9:3; 17:6; 21:1, 14

Moreover, Jesus controls who gets what information. To his disciples he manifests his glory; to special insiders he predicts their future; to his inner circle he reveals God's name; to his beloved intimate he imparts a secret; and to a close follower he shows his hands and side. He may "tell" things to the world and to outsiders (eipon), but important information is always controlled. Only select people receive special information and knowledge.

Yet the Fourth Gospel insists that Jesus is both the most knowledgeable character in the narrative and also a revealer. Although no one has seen God (1:18; 5:37; 6:46), Jesus has. The world has not known God, but "I have known you" (17:25). We are told that God has showed Jesus all that God does (5:19-20); God has taught him (8:28). One of the key things that Jesus makes known is God's "name," "I AM" (Neyrey, Ideol). But he controls who knows the "name"; not all, but only the inner circle of his disciples know it or appreciate it (17:6, 12, 26).

One thing is certain: Jesus "knows all things" (16:30). He claims to be uniquely knowledgeable because he comes "from above" (3:31-32) and is "not of this world" (8:24). Hence he knows spiritual things, not fleshly one and he is privy to heavenly things, not earthly ones. He knows, moreover, that he "came from God and was going to God" (13:3); he knows "whence he came and whither he goes," the most important knowledge in the gospel. Furthermore, he knows the identity of his betrayer (6:70-71; 13:18-19, 21 and 26-27). By his prophecies, he demonstrates that he even knows the future.

This same Jesus, moreover, gives information to others, albeit in a controlled mode. He has "made God known" (1:18b). To his disciples he has "given the words which you gave me" (17:8, 14). People regularly ask him to "show us" something, perhaps "the Father" (14:8-9) or a legitimating sign (2:18). Indeed he does "show" many things: "works" to outsiders (10:32) or "his hands and his feet" to insiders (20:20). Yet information is always controlled.

Not every one in fact accepts his testimony or agrees with his interpretation of events and so becomes knowledgeable. As we saw above, the explanation may lie in the metaphysics of the knower (from below, of the flesh, etc.) or in the realm of information control (not taught by God, taught by confusing parables, informed by double-meaning terms, prophecies not understood at first, etc.).

Jesus possesses a very potent form of knowledge: he can read hearts. He knows that there is "no deceit" (dolos) in Nathanael (1:47) and that Peter "loves him" (21:15-17). Yet because he can read hearts, he can detect secrets, deception, lying, plotting and the like. Early in the gospel the narrator tells us that Jesus has this power and information; the significant positioning of the remark socializes readers to its importance. Jesus did not trust himself with people, "because he knew all men. . .he himself knew what was in man" (2:24-25). Thus when he tells people with whom he is disputing:

I know that you do not have the love of God in you (5:42).

You seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves (6:26).

Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe (6:64).

You do not know him [God] (7:28).

You know neither me nor my Father (8:19).

My words find no place in you (8:37).

Why do you not understand? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word.

You are of your father the devil (8:43-44).

By reading their hearts, Jesus knows who are insiders or outsiders, or who feigns interest or belief in him, or who is simply evil. In the sociology of witchcraft accusation (Douglas/Neyrey, Paul), this type of special knowledge is expected in a cosmos of ambiguity, secrecy and deception (John 8 and Neyrey Biblica).

We are informed by the narrator that Jesus knew all along who the "dropouts" were who eventually left his company (6:64-65). Since he knows the hearts of all, he was not surprised when "many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him" (6:66). As we noted above, Jesus knew all along who his betrayer was. This "foreknowledge," moreover, is passed on only to certain people and plays an important social role. In a world where power, control and honor constitute the pivotal cultural values, it matters greatly that the author presents Jesus as a figure in control of events. He already knows the assaults upon his person, but he has "power to lay down my life and power to take it back" (10:17-18). He knows both the "dropouts" and his traitor, another demonstration of control. Furthermore, the audience of the gospel is given this controlled information as well, so that it too may be "in the know" and not be shamed or shocked by events (13:19; 14:27-31; 15:11; 16:1-4, 32-33). One disciple at least learns from Jesus the traitor's identity (13:25-26); it remains unclear whether he passed on this information to Peter (13:24). Thus "foreknowledge" of "dropout" and traitors may offset the espionage against Jesus and his disciples. Knowledge of traitors, moreover, makes certain people in the group very, very powerful.

Thus we see that Jesus is presented in the narrative as the figure who knows all things. This contrasts him with all other characters, who either cannot know or in fact do not know. Jesus is, moreover, a revealer. His dissemination of knowledge and information, however, is carefully controlled; only a few of the narrative characters come to share in his knowledge, whereas the author allows the insider audience to be fully informed. But that only illustrates the critical point: information is always controlled.

2.0 The Sociology of Secrecy

The history of secrecy in antiquity has been described in Dvornik's The Origins of Intelligence Services (1974). It examines the phenomenon of secrecy in the earliest human records from the ancient near east, Egypt, Assyria-Babylon-Persia, Greece, Rome and Byzantium. Indeed scholarly interest in "secrecy" has tended to focus on governmental secrecy and intelligence services, with a corresponding development in the genre of spying and espionage fiction. The leaking of secrets in governmental centers has become an art, especially since the publication of the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War. Alongside this can be found a library of literature on "privacy" (McClellan; Young), a topic of particular interest in the USA.

Systematic analysis of "secrecy" is generally traced to Georg Simmel's publication of "The Secret and the Secret Society" (1907; 1950). Recently Simmel's work has been given new attention by sociologists who examine the phenomenon in cross-cultural perspective (Hazelrigg 326-30; Tefft; Frizby ). Some biblical scholars have begun to tap into this theory for purposes of biblical interpretation, notably John J. Pilch (1992; 1994). In surveying the literature on "secrecy," we are attempting to construct a model of the "secrecy process," which will be cross-cultural and so applicable to the Fourth Gospel.

2.1 Secrecy Defined. Tefft defines secrecy as "the mandatory or voluntary, but calculated, concealment of information, activities, or relationships" (1980: 320). Tefft's collaborators in his pioneering study agree that secrecy is a formal, conscious and deliberate concealment of information.

Secrets, moreover, are "a social resource (or adaptive strategy) used by individuals, groups, and organizations to attain certain ends" (Tefft 1980: 35). As a strategy, secrecy may be employed aggressively against rivals or defensively against attackers (Tefft 1980: 36). Secrecy enables certain types of associations to avoid political persecution or destruction; it allows other groups to maintain an exclusive monopoly on esoteric knowledge. As an adaptive device, then, secrecy allows individuals and groups to attain certain ends, such as control of one's environment and the prediction of others' actions (Tefft 1980: 321).

2.2 The Secrecy Process. Tefft, who takes a broad view of the phenomenon of secrecy, describes it as an adaptive device containing five interrelated processes: security (control of information), entrusted disclosure, espionage, evaluation of spying, and post-hoc security measures.

Tefft notes that all peoples engage in some form of secrecy or information control (1980:39). Kees Boole makes the same claim: "Not only is there no religion without secrecy, but there is no human existence without it" (1987:1). Families do not want their squabbles, embarrassments, intimacies, private interactions or finances discussed outside their houses; likewise with groups, organizations and governments. They all practice some form of information control, whether they base it on the right to privacy, the nature of interpersonal relations or the politics of business and administration. All engage in some form of "security," that is, information control, and hence secrecy.

Within families, groups, organizations or governments, certain people are privy to what is withheld from others. In fact, who knows what may serve as an index of status or ranking within a group. But not everybody knows all things. Thus secrets are entrusted to some, not others. The others may or may not know that there are secrets withheld from them. Hence, we find within governments the use of degrees of classified information, labels such as "for your eyes only," and the like. Nevertheless, there tends to be an inner circle which is "in the know."

This immediately raises the issue of some sort of "security system" in terms of who can or should be entrusted with secrets. It is a known fact that group members who develop bonds of mutual loyalty pose less security risk than those of low morale. Nevertheless, groups tend to develop security systems to secure their secrets, simply because not all group members can be counted on to have highly developed bonds of mutual loyalty. Such systems can include a number of steps in securing its secrets, such as: (a) required loyalty tests for old and new members, (b) total obedience to the group at the expense of other ties, (c) gradual revelation of secrets to members, and (d) imposition of strict norms of silence (Simmel ).

Secrets invite snooping, espionage and disclosure. This may in part be due to fear that secrets may be used to harm others (i.e., a planned coup) or to shut others out from certain [unknown] benefits (i.e., technological formulae; discoveries). Thus it is deemed a vital self interest to know what others are up to. There may also be a reaction of shame to learn that one is excluded from the honor of being part of the inner circle. Whatever the varied reasons, outsiders tend invariably to engage in some form of espionage to learn the secrets of others.

By "espionage" we simply mean the "acquisition of information held secret by another group or individual" (Tefft 1980:333). Spying, whether done by persons or technological means, will entail a body of people who watch, scrutinize, lie in wait, trap, trick, etc. others so as to learn their secrets. They may investigate records, interrogate associates, plant informers and spies, or simply set up some form of intelligence service.

If espionage succeeds in gaining access to controlled information, an evaluation process must take place. Is the new information of any value? is it a cover? a false lead? "Leaks" of information may be intentional to distract those engage in espionage from more vital secrets or to lull them into thinking that they have cracked the secret.

If individuals, groups, organizations or governments learn that their secrecy has been breached, they are likely to engage in a post-hoc program to identify the spy, plug the leak, bury the secret deeper, etc. New loyalty tests (even polygraph tests) may be demanded. But the "secrecy process" is hardly over, for with the renewed interest in keeping secrets, those who control information invite a new round of espionage and evaluation, which may result, if successful, in new post-hoc programs to shore up security. And so the cycle repeats itself again and again and again.

2.3 The Functions of Secrecy.

If secrecy is an adaptive strategy or a means to attain certain ends in the course of social interaction (Tefft 35), then we might inquire about the various functions it can play. First, let us distinguish manifest and latent secrecy (Tefft 46).

2.3.1 Manifest and Latent Secrecy. Manifest secrecy describes the formal and overt function of certain societies or groups to hide ceremonies, rites, information, and the like from the curious and perhaps dangerous eyes of others. In contrast, latent secrecy may be practiced by groups as the additional and unintended consequences of certain structural arrangements, such as covering up unintended actions.

2.3.2 Extra-group and Intra-group Secrecy. Our attention focuses primarily on the specific functions of manifest secrecy. And here we distinguish the functions of extra-group secrecy from intra-group secrecy (Brandt 125-27). Extra-group secrecy may be practiced for aggressive or defensive purposes (Tefft 36). Aggressive secrecy, which Tefft judges is best understood under the rubric of "conflict theory" (Tefft 49-63), describes actions and strategy used by alienative secret groups to organize political rebellion or provide secret leadership for revolutionary organizations. Groups subject to coercion by more powerful groups deal with their antagonists by trying to equalize power by hiding information or resources. Alternately, groups often employ defensive secrecy strategy to protect themselves. Secret societies such as the KKK, which are in close accord with the values of the dominant society, employ secrecy to disguise illegal activities. Alienative groups, however, which are embattled minorities within a larger hostile society, use secrecy to escape persecution or destruction (Tefft 324; Brandt 131). One sociologist suggests that "the more intense the conflict the greater efforts to conceal information from antagonists" (Tefft 51). Thus extra-group secrecy is employed in an atmosphere of fear or distrust (Erickson and Flynn 252-54).

Intra-group secrecy may be employed for a variety of purposes (Tefft 51-53). It may prove significant for group formation, in that some groups form for the overt purpose of engaging in covert actions, such as secret societies. Likewise, secrecy both sets up group boundaries and, when defended, maintains them. Those "in the know" distinguish themselves from those "not in the know"; and the very process of guarding this distinction contributes to group cohesiveness. This is often called the "superiority syndrome." Internal secrecy within groups, whereby only select members know certain information, serves to control access to rank, status and political power. "Elders" or "experts" regularly maintain their special position within groups by monopolizing esoteric information even from other insiders, thus buttressing their own power and status within the group (Brandt 130-34). Groups may employ internal secrecy or information control among members simply as an efficient defensive mechanism to protect the group; for the fewer people who share vital information, the safer the secret. Finally bureaucracies are notorious for employing internal espionage against insiders to garner information about shifting loyalties (Smith 1970: ; in tefft 330).

2.4 Who Knows What? When?

2.4.1 Who Knows? Elizabeth Brandt's study of secrecy in the Taos Pueblo offers suggestive clues to the function of secrecy within a hierarchical group (125-34). As most people have observed, information is restricted even within close-knit groups; not all people know everything. If we attempt to plot out status and role within a group, who knows something can often serve as an index of public standing. Those "not in the know," even within the group, may be spouses brought in by exogamous marriages, and so untrustworthy, or families and tribes who only recently associated with the group. They represent persons of low status, who are not integrated into the social networks within a village. We can contrast them with the few elites in the group, who are privy to the group's secrets, and who stand atop the status hierarchy in the group and control it in virtue of their monopoly of esoteric information. It often happens that only those with complete information enjoy full political power within the group. Between these two extremes we can observe a diversity of individuals in terms of the kinds of knowledge they possess (Brandt 133; Hazelrigg 1969:324).

2.4.2 What Is Known? If persons can be ranked in terms of what they know, then we should inquire more closely about what is known and what can be known? Brandt's study of the kinds of knowledge available in the Taos Pueblo surfaces five that may be group specific to the Pueblo: "(1) mystical; (2) theological; (3) liturgical; (4) dogma or catechism; and (5) participatory" (127). Mystical knowledge refers to the private, ineffable and non-verbal communication (i.e., the vision quest); it always remains secret. "Theological" knowledge is a kind of "deep knowledge that penetrates below the surface," thus providing mythical frameworks of interpretation or rationales for perception and action; novelist Tony Hillerman has gained special access to this through informers. "Liturgical" knowledge refers to the correct manner of conducting ceremonies and rituals, i.e., dances and chants, or simply about "behavior" within the group. "Dogma" refers to a superficial form of knowledge about the group; it involves a rote form of learning and represents the official "received" views of the group (128). "Participatory" knowledge represents for Brandt a miscellaneous category for the various pieces of information that low level performers and spectators have (e.g., liturgical participation in a language foreign to those attending). Certain people know more than others, because information is controlled so that certain people know more than others. Those most "in the know" with knowledge of the core myths and rituals rank highest. Those with specialized knowledge of this or that item belong in the middle, while others who know little or understand superficially are ranked lowest. This may be easily verified by inquiring into the degrees of membership in various secret societies, such as the Masons or the KKK (Gist 1938:354; 1940:55).

2.4.3 When Is It Known? In focus here are issues of recruitment, initiation, and advancement within groups. It is a well known fact that special knowledge is reserved for novices during initiation rituals (Burkert 260-64; Brandt 137-38; Laguerre 151-52). Even among novices, there are grades of initiation and corresponding new knowledge, as in the case of the cult of Mithra (Ulansey 6-8, 19) and the Greek Mystery Religions (Burkert 276-78). Disciplina arcani

Ancients clearly understood that the life cycle of humans consisted of stages (see Philo, Cher. 114) with various knowledges and behaviors appropriate to each stage (Philo, L.A. III.159). Furthermore, ancient education itself consisted of graded mastery of knowledged. Thus, people are ranked and classified in terms of their stage of life and its appropriate knowledge (see 1 Cor 3:1-2).

Thus, when we investigate a group or sift through information about them in documents, we may gain vital clues as to the roles and statuses of its members by attempting to answer the questions: who know what and when?

3.0 John's Gospel and the Sociology of Secrecy

In the beginning of this study, we enumerated a number of patterns which regularly appear in the Fourth Gospel concerning: (a) lying, deception and evasion, (b) hiding, either oneself or information, (c) secret and public transmission of information, (d) misunderstandings, ambiguity and double-meaning words, (e) people "in the know/not in the know," and reasons for why people know/do not know what they know, (f) irony, and (g) Jesus's perfect knowledge: knowledge of his foreknowledge and knowledge of human hearts, all of which are secrets to all other people. This is prima facie evidence of a systematic pattern of "information control" or secrecy. We briefly sketched the sociology of secrecy, namely, the model of how secrecy works and what comprises it. It remains for us to examine the Fourth Gospel more closely and in detail from that formal perspective: the sociology of secrecy/information control.

3.1 Secrecy Process and the Fourth Gospel. In the sociology of secrecy, five stages of a cyclical process were outlined (secrecy, espionage, counter-espionage, evaluation of spying, post-factum damage control).

3.1 Secrecy: Controlling Information. We trust that the data presented in the first part of this study amply indicates that "information control" or secrecy constitutes a major formal theme in the Fourth Gospel.

3.2 Entrusted Disclosure. We take it as a given that information is regularly controlled in the Fourth Gospel. Certain select persons are let into the secret and are entrusted with the disclosure of the controlled information. For example, the premier witness to Jesus, John the Baptizer, twice admits that "I did not know him" (1:31, 33); but he was ultimately entrusted by God with very special information about Jesus: "He who sent me . . . said to me, 'He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit'" (1:33).

Although the servants at the wedding at Cana know the secret of where the water-turned-into-wine comes from (2:9), the disciples received "the manifestation of his glory" (2:11). More significantly, the Samaritan woman is gradually entrusted with secrets about Jesus. She begins the story as a character who was told "If only you knew . . . who it is who said to you 'Give me to drink,' you would have asked him. . ." (4:10). As she is entrusted with more secrets, she does ask "Give me this water" (4:15) and she receives remarkable information (4:20-24), even a Christophany of Jesus as the Messiah (4:26). The man born blind likewise receives a special epiphany by Jesus as well as an answer to his question about "Who is he?" (9:36). Martha, who along with Mary and Lazarus are "beloved disciples," receives very special information about Jesus as "the Resurrection and the Life" (11:25).

Select disciples enjoy Jesus' special, private disclosure of secrets in chs 13-17, the Last Discourse (Kurz etc.). A catalogue of the secrets entrusted includes: (1) the meaning of the footwashing (13:12-17), (2) knowledge of the traitor (13:24-26), (3) information about where Jesus is going (14:1-7), (4) identification of his replacement (Martyn), who will disclose still more controlled information (14:26), (5) forecasts of future hard times (15:18-19; 16:1-4, 31-33), (6) explanation of some of Jesus' statements which seem ambiguous (16:16-22), and (7) a time when "figures," or information control, will no longer be used (16:25-30).

Information is refused certain people during Jesus' arrest and trials. Annas is told nothing (18:21), nor is Pilate (18:33-34; 19:9-10). After all, they are not insiders of being entrusted with privileged information. Yet the disclosure of secrets continues after Jesus' resurrection. Mary Magdalene receives both a Christophany at the empty tomb and a remarkable secret, which she is commanded to entrust to Jesus' "brethren": "Go to my brethren and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God'" (20:17). Finally Peter is given special information about the death he would die so as to glorify God (21:18-19). Even a misunderstanding about the status of the Beloved Disciple is clarified for them (21:21-23).

Thus we note a regular pattern in the Forth Gospel whereby select disciples of Jesus or witnesses to him are entrusted with special information. They know secrets about his identity which not only are unknown to others, but even withheld from them. Curiously, up until his restoration in ch 21, Simon Peter never receives any of these entrusted secrets, unlike his portrayal in the Synoptic tradition (Neyrey 1993:2Pet 1:16ff).

3.3 Espionage: Discovering Secrets. If secrecy is employed, it invariably provokes espionage to unveil what is covered over. Since it seems clear that "information control" and secrecy are a regular part of the narrative of the Fourth Gospel, we turn to the process of espionage, namely, how people try to discover secrets.

As we begin this part of the investigation, we pause to add to the semantic world field presented above linguistic data dealing with the phenomenon of espionage in the New Testament.

Spy, Spying

- kataskopos/kataskopiazô (Heb 11:31; Gal 2:4)

- egkathiêmi (Luke 20:20)

- pareisaktos (Gal 2:4)

- katopteuô/katoptês

- skpiazomai/skopos/diaskopiazomai

2. Trap, Catch

- agreuô (Mark 12:13)

Cleverness, Craftiness

- panourgos/panourgia

- dolos

3. Report, Betray, Act as Traitor

- paradidos/paradidômi

In addition, there are many terms for (a) questioning (eromai, exereeinô, exetazô, anakrinô, erôtaô/dierôtaô, pynthanomai), (2) investigating (exetazô, anazêteô, anakrinô, skopeô/diaskopeô, ereunaô/diexereunaô, akriboô/diakriboô, mikrologeomai), and (3) inquire (exetaô, zêteô, eromai, munthanomai, erôtaô). We know of curious people (philopeuthês/philopeustos, lichnos, periergos) and busybodies (allotriepiskopos, 1 Peter 4:15) and gossips (phlyaros, 1 Tim 5:13). Furthermore, the ordinary semantic forms of asking questions to get information should be included, whether this is done informally or by a judicial body or by spies.

In his Gallic Wars, Julius Caesar identifies a host of figures who function in his extensive intelligence network. He employs "scouts" (exploratores), who faithfully conduct recognizance of the enemy army. Information about the plans and movements of the adversary is regularly reported to him by unnamed sources (rebus cognitis), presumably spies, informants or sympathizers. In regard to espionage in the Fourth Gospel, we do not find specific terms for "scouts," "informers," "spying" or "entrapment" as we do in Luke 20:20 and Gal 2:4 (but see Mark 3:2 and Luke 6:7). Nevertheless, Jesus is the object of intense scrutiny and investigation, the object of which is to discover his secrets. People regularly "hear about" Jesus, either because of the friendly spread of his reputation (4:46; 12:9, 12)) or through hostile reports about him carried by informers and agents of his enemies (4:1; 11:46-47). His movements, then, are carefully monitored.

In their search for information about Jesus, various people ask him questions directly or ask questions about him from others. As Bruce Malina has argued, questions in an honor-shame society are often challenging (NTW ); questions, then, while they seek answers and information, are far from being neutral in intent. It is simply an interesting fact that in the Fourth Gospel the term for asking questions (erôtaô) occurs three time more frequently than the combined instances of it in the Synoptics, an indication that "asking questions" in this gospel is a significant feature.

Yet in addition to the obvious verb erôtaô, the Fourth Gospel contains an elaborate series of questions asked in some form of the interrogative tís, (dia) tí and pôs. For purposes of analysis, let us systematically examine these questions.

Who are you (tís)? On three occasions, a formal inquiry by designated public officials is held concerning Jesus. In the first instance, John the Baptizer is thoroughly investigated by deputized agents of the Jerusalem elite concerning his own identity and his presumed relationship to Jesus (1:19-22). Later the man cured of his paralysis is queried about Jesus (5:12-13), as are the parents of the man born blind (9:21). Jesus himself is asked specific questions about his identity: "Who are you?" (8:25) and "Whom do you make yourself to be?" (8:53). Twice people ask him "Who is this Son of man?" -- once positively (9:35) and once negatively (12:34). Finally in the gospel's last narrative, no one asks him "Who are you?" (21:12), for they are all now in the know. To round out the picture, we note how the Beloved Disciple seeks secret information from Jesus about the traitor: "Who is it?" (13:24-25), the possession of which knowledge becomes a mark of distinction later (21:20). Lastly, Jesus himself asks questions of those approaching him: "Whom do you seek?" -- both of the mob who came to arrest him (18:4, 7) and more positively of Mary Magdalene at the tomb (20:15).

What is this? What are you doing? Some people are asked "what they have to say about so-and-so," either the Baptizer about himself (1:22) or the man born blind about Jesus (9:17). Indeed, this information is garnered in a formal inquiry. Other "what?" questions are asked, which are on the order of "What do you seek" (4:27), "What business is this of yours?" (2:4; 21:22-23), a phrase which distances that person from Jesus' secret plans and purposes. Others challenge Jesus' legitimation and demand "What sign do you give? (2:18; 6:30). Still others ask "What are we to do?" in regard to Jesus, but not in a friendly manner (6:28; 11:47). Facts about Jesus are requested, either how he healed (9:26) or what crime he allegedly committed (18:29, 35). Finally, we learn of inquiry into his words, "What does he mean?" -- by foe (7:36) and friend (16:17-18).

Why? What motive? Investigations often include inquiry into the reasons why something is done. For example, if John the Baptizer is not the Christ or a prophet, "Why do you baptize?" (1:25). Those sent to arrest Jesus are asked when they return emptyhanded "Why did you not bring him?" (7:45). And the man born blind sarcastically asks the Pharisees who keep inquiring about Jesus "Why do you want to hear it again? Do you too want to become his disciples?" (9:27). Furthermore, people directly ask Jesus "why?" questions: "Why cannot I follow you now?" (13:37) and "Why is it that you will manifest yourself to us and not to the world" (14:22). Moreover, Jesus himself asks friends and foes why they do what they do: "Why do you seek to kill me?" (7:19); "Why don't you understand?" (8:43); "Why don't you believe?" (8:46); "Why do you strike me?" (18:23); "Why are you weeping?" (20:15). See also 4:27 and 12:5.

Where? A disciple asks Jesus a pregnant question: "Where do you remain?" (1:38). This disciple "came and saw" (1:39), "remained" with Jesus and presumably learned much about him, but it was highly controlled information in a highly controlled context.

Whence? Whither? One of the recurring ironies of the Fourth Gospel is the claim by some to know "whence" Jesus came. If people know all there is to know about a neighbor, there can be no secrecy or threat about them (see Luke 13:25). But claims to know "whence" Jesus comes are false, because Jesus' secret remains just that, a secret (6:41-42; 7:27-28). Nor do people know "whither" he is going when he goes away, perhaps to the Dispersion (7:35) or suicide (8:21-22). The select disciples, at least, acknowledge that they do not know where he is going (14:5; 16:5). One figure only in the gospel knows the secret: "I know whence I have come and whither I am going, but you do not know whence I come or whither I am going" (8:14). Jesus, of course, knows that he came down from heaven and is returning there (3:13; 6:62; 13:1), information which he gradually shares with others (20:17).

How can this be? How can you say. . .? Other questions are asked which are introduced by the adverb "how" (pôs), which have to do with how much of Jesus' secret is understood. Seven times, people who have listened to Jesus react in incomprehension to his words:

3:4 "How can a man be born when he is old?"

3:9 "How can this be?"

6:42 "How does he say, 'I have come down from heaven'?"

6:52 "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

8:33 "How is it that you say, 'You shall be made free'?"

12:34 "How can you say that the Son of man must be lifted up?"

Clearly people who ask questions of this sort are not privy to the secret meanings of Jesus' words.

On one occasion, we are told of intense scrutiny by the Pharisees concerning the manner in which Jesus healed the blind man (9:10, 15, 19, 21, 26). The crowds likewise question how Jesus came by his learning, since he is unlettered (7:15). Jesus himself contributes to this pattern by commenting four times on the lack of understanding in his hearers:

3:12 "How can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?"

5:44 "How can you believe, who receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?"

5:47 "If you do not believe his [Moses'] writings, how will you believe my words?"

14:9 "How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?"

Not all who ask questions that begin with "How...?" are incorrigibly ignorant. The man born blind asks the appropriate question: "How can a man who is a sinner do such signs?" (9:16). And Thomas knows that he does not know when he says: "We do not know where you are going; how can we know the way?" (14:5).

The author of the Fourth Gospel has cast the espionage process in the literary form of forensic inquiry. After all, legal and forensic investigations exist precisely to ferret out secrets, gather testimony, conduct investigations, and the like. On two of these occasions, a formal inquiry is held by relevant officials concerning Jesus' behavior. The person whom Jesus cured is interrogated in considerable ostensibly because Jesus healed on the sabbath (5:10-13, 15; 9:13-17, 24-34). In other contexts, witnesses such as the Baptizer are formally and thoroughly interrogated concerning Jesus (1:19-34; see 5:35); A. E. Harvey commented on the explicit forensic character of the Baptizer as a martys, that is, a forensic witness ( ). When on trial himself, Jesus tells his scrutinizers: "Ask those who have heard me, they know what I said to them" (18:21).

Jesus himself is regularly engaged in controversy which our author has cast in the form of a forensic trial (chs 5, 7, 8, 10, 18, 19). On each of these occasions his words as well as his actions are investigated. Implied or secret meanings of his words are sought, whether he commented "My Father is working still, and I am working" (5:16) or "You seek me and you will not find me" (7:34) or "I am the light of the world" (8:12). On occasion he is formally asked a question, which in the Synoptics is asked of him at his official trial before the Sanhedrin: "If you are the Christ, tell us plainly" (10:24; see Matt 26:63; Mark 14:61).

We conclude that consistently throughout the Fourth Gospel, Jesus is the object of espionage. His opponents systematically inquire about him, either by interrogating witnesses, associates, or Jesus himself.

3.4 Evaluation of Espionage. It is one thing to engage in espionage to uncover controlled information, and quite another thing to process what is discovered. Information might be leaked on purpose, either to satisfy the curious at a low level of inquiry or to mislead the investigators entirely. Disinformation always remains a possibility, and so the espionage agents must sift their finding carefully and interrogators must examine testimony with great care.

One way of examining how examiners examine their investigation might be to track down in the Forth Gospel how questions are answered. If agents are send to garner information, do they in fact get anything? Those sent to John the Baptizer receive clear and full answers to their questions; after all, John's sole role is to "bear testimony" to Jesus (1:19-34), a testimony which the narrator claims was acceptable to them (5:35). Other interrogators receive misleading remarks, as in the case of the parents of the man born blind. For defensive reasons, they do not want to have anything to do with Jesus, and so disclaim all knowledge of him (9:18-23). On occasion, Jesus himself answers questions in a manner which simply confounds the questioner or ignores the question entirely. In response to Nicodemus' question about being "born anothen," Jesus talks about "birth through water" and about "wind" (3:5-8 and see 9-12). Those who investigate what Jesus meant by "Where I am going you cannot come" (7:34) at one time think he means "to the Dispersion" (7:35) or suicide (8:22). Jesus gives them no answer to their question, and they are left to themselves to discover his meaning. Other questioners are summarily dismissed: "I told you, and you do not believe" (10:25). On occasion, Jesus' answer is entirely missed by his interrogators. For example, when Jesus' legitimation for his temple actions is demanded ("What sign do you show us..." 2:18), he responds, "[You] destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it" (2:19). The questioners totally ignore the first part, which exposes their own secrets ("You destroy this temple"), and fail to grasp the meaning of the second part ("...and in three days I will raise it up"). The information controlled then by Jesus will be shared with insiders later and is given immediately to the reader. Thus select few insiders know Jesus' answer, while opponents and outsiders entirely miss his meaning.

Nevertheless, the investigators are repeatedly warned by Jesus that they will invariably misunderstand anything he says. As we noted above, they are fleshly people of this earth, and so they cannot understand spirit things of heaven (3:6, 12). They judge by appearances (7:24; 8:15); they take things literally. Some investigators, moreover, start out "blind" for they prejudge that because Jesus healed on the Sabbath, he must be a sinner (9:16). This colors all testimony that they receive and leaves them incapable of understanding correctly (9:40-41). They begin their investigation convinced that "he is leading the people astray" (7:12) and no amount of testimony will dissuade them (7:47). In another vein, since only Jesus' sheep hear his voice, Pilate cannot understand Jesus' testimony because he is not an insider (18:37-38; see 10:26-27).

We would introduce at this point the Johannine pattern of "seeking" and "finding," since this too has to do with trying to discover secrets. In the Q source, Jesus states:

Ask, and it will be given to you;
seek, and you will find;
knock, and it will be opened to you.
For everyone who asks receives,
and who seeks finds,
and to him who knocks it will be opened (Matt 7:7-8//Luke 11:9-10).

In their current gospel contexts, this "asking and seeking" seems to refer to petitionary prayer particularly for resources such as good ("ask for bread . . . ask for a fish"). But we should not peremptorily reject asking for information, wisdom, and knowledge.

The Fourth Gospel regularly reports that people are "seeking" something or someone. Two disciples of the Baptizer "seek" to know where Jesus remains (1:39); and they learn the answer. The disciples would like to know what Jesus was seeking from the Samaritan woman (4:27), but do not ask and so they do not find out. Some people seek Jesus, not because they desire his signs or words, but because they ate their fill of his bread (6:24, 26). Although "seeking" Jesus might be an act of discipleship and belief, there are people who "seek to kill" him (7:1, 19-20, 25; 8:21, 37, 40; 11:8) or arrest him (18:4, 7-8). In contrast, Mary Magdalene is "seeking" him for quite other reasons (20:15). All who "seek" Jesus, then, are engaged in some form of information discovery, which may be friendly or hostile. If hostile, it is part of an espionage pattern.

Yet at one level of the Jesus tradition, those who "seek" are promised that they will "find." This term likewise becomes an important Johannine indicator. The disciples of the Baptizer find the place where Jesus stays, and much more. In turn they "find" relatives and neighbors (1:41, 43, 45) as they share this new information. On two occasions, Jesus "finds" others, the crippled man (5:14) and the man born blind (9:35); but his "finding" results in quite different sharing of information. The crippled man, who was "not in the know" (5:13), does know Jesus and even talks about him to others (5:15), but hardly in a way which indicates that he has learned a secret or become his disciple. He knows only Jesus' name, not his identity or mission or significance. When, however, the man born blind is "found," he too learns about Jesus and becomes a recipient of very special information about "the Son of man" (9:35-38). He already appears to be quite "in the know" about Jesus, which information is augmented in his encounter with Jesus. Moreover, he has already spoken out boldly on Jesus' behalf, and so the reader takes him as an insider, even an ideal model of discipleship. The crippled man indeed found Jesus, but stands apart from any secrets or information shared, whereas the man born blind receives both an epiphany of Jesus and a catechesis on "the Son of man."

Pilate presents another view of those who "find" out something. Three times he tells the crowds that "I find no cause against this man" (18:38; 19:4, 6). While he may have "found" Jesus innocent of the charges against him, Pilate has hardly "found" out the truth about Jesus; after all, he cannot hear Jesus' voice, because he is not one of his sheep (see 18:37-38). Still others "find" Jesus after he seems to have disappeared (6:25). Thus "finding" is not assured to all who "seek": some never find out, others find out very little, while others find out very much. Information, then, remains tightly controlled, especially against espionage agents.

By these patterns, the author of the Fourth Gospel labors to indicate just who are the espionage agents spying on Jesus. Those who receive answers to their questions or who begin to see and know beyond appearances or who seek and find are insiders and so share the controlled information. But those who receive no answer to their questions, or who receive rather double-meaning responses or who judge by appearances or who seek in a hostile manner are clearly outsiders. Because of their wicked or inferior nature, they cannot understand heavenly and spiritual things.

The espionage process, moreover, utterly fails. The secrets are never discovered. Even if the investigative agents hear Jesus speak, they invariably misunderstand him. The information which is being controlled, then, is never at risk, except for the traitor. But then Jesus knew he was a traitor from the beginning (6:64, 70-71; 13:18, 21, 27).

3.5 Post-Factum Security Process

3.2 Secrecy and Differentiation of Characters. In the model of secrecy, we noted that information is controlled in terms both of outsiders and insiders. In the Fourth Gospel, we quickly observe a recurring pattern which separates the two groups, namely, insiders who are "in the know" distinguished from outsiders "not in the know."

3.2.1 Outsiders: "Not in the Know." Our narrator employs a number of patterns to help us recognize outsiders who are "not in the know." A number of times Jesus forthrightly tells members of his audience that they are "not in the know," even though Jesus is speaking to them:

1."You do not know" (3:10; 7:28; 8:14, 19, 43, 55)

2. "You do not hear/listen to my voice" (8:37, 47; 10:27; 18:37)

"You do not believe" (8:45; 10:25)

3. "You do not belong" (10:26).

On occasion, the author supplies that information (8:27; 10:6; 12:37;

Sometimes people claim to know something, which claim is challenged by Jesus: "So you 'know' me, and you 'know where I come from'? But I have not come of my own accord; he who sent me is true, and him you do 'not know" (7:28; see 8:52). Furthermore, some of those who ask Jesus questions never get them answered, and so they remain "not in the know"? Nicodemus, for example, asks a question of Jesus (3:4), which Jesus answers in such as way as to reduce Nicodemus to ignorance: "How can this be" (3:9). Jesus answers this second question with a question, which clearly declares that Nicodemus is "not in the know": You, a teacher of Israel, and you do not understand this?. . .if I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?" (3:10, 12). Other unanswered questions are: 7:35-36; 8:19, 22, 25, 53; 10:23. The interrogators of the man born blind ask questions and receive the same answer, but refuse to accept it, thus positioning themselves as the figures whom Jesus labels the truly blind (9:39-41). In the pattern of "statement/misunderstanding/clarification," some people receive a final word from Jesus, but it does not serve to clarify anything or enlighten them, but rather confirm them in their "misunderstanding" (chs 3; 6:42/43-51, 52/53-58; 9).

In a number of ways either Jesus or the narrator indicate why these outsiders are "not in the know." Some of Jesus' hearers are earthly people who can only know "earthly things" (epigeia), but never "heavenly things" (epourania, 3:12). When they question Jesus about the meaning of his words, he declares that they cannot know his meanings because they are "from below" and "of this world," whereas he is "from above" and "not of this world" (8:24). They "judge by appearances" (kat' opsin, 7:24) or "judge according to the flesh" (kata tên sarka, 8:15). (Since only Jesus' "sheep hear his voice," those who do not hear is voice are not his sheep (10:4-5, 26-27; 18:37). If "all shall be taught by God" (6:45a) and "Every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me" (6:45b), then those who do not understand Jesus are presumably "not taught by God" and have "not heard and learned from God." Some people, then, do not know because they cannot know; others do not know, because they love darkness rather than light (3:19; see 3:2; 12:42; 19:38-39); still others do not know because they are kept in the dark.

3.2.2 Insiders: "Not in the Know." On occasion, the narrator tells us about characters who are "not in the know" who are also in some sense insiders. The mother of Jesus at the Cana wedding does not seem to know about Jesus' "hour" (2:4). She may be functioning as a Johannine stereotype of blood relatives who appear to be insiders, but are not -- at least, not yet. Some commentators consider Nicodemus to be an insider of some sort. After all, he comes to Jesus, even if at night; he claims to know something: "We know you are a teacher come from God"; he speaks on Jesus' behalf (7:51); and he buries Jesus lavishly with spices (19:39). Yet for all that, he does not know much (3:4, 9, 12); he comes at night; and he thinks that Jesus is utterly and permanently dead. He too may be a typical Johannine stereotype of a quasi-insider, one only very partially "in the know."

Peter seems to be the character most ambiguously presented by the narrator. In the Synoptics, he is chosen first, blessed with divine inspiration, and proclaimer of Jesus' Messianic identity. Not so in the Fourth Gospel: he is called second, he never sayings anything inspired or inspiring; in fact, Jesus tells him outright that "What I am doing you do not know now, but afterwards you will understand" (13:7). Peter does not know the identity of the traitor, and so asks a disciple truly "in the know" for this information (13:24); but the narrative does not indicate that he was in fact told the secret. When Jesus tells Judas "What you are going to do, do quickly," Peter appears to be like the others: "No one at the table knew why he [Jesus] said this to him [Judas]" (13:28). They have erroneous interpretations of Jesus' remarks to Judas (13:27-29).

3.2.3 Insiders: Degrees of Being "In the Know." The narrator makes a point of telling us that various insiders know different things. I suggest that this also serves to rank the persons in Jesus' circle.

(1) Certain persons are labelled as insiders by the very fact that they "come and see" when invited. Whether Andrew and associate (1:39), Nathanael (1:46) or the men of Samaria (4:29), they come to Jesus and know (1:41, 49; 4:42). We truly consider them insiders, and even credit Nathanael with a high status than the traditional apostles by virtue of his struggle to "come and see" and Jesus' special conversation with him.

(2) As important as these events are for indicating knowledgeable insiders, they are surpassed in importance by the "statement-misunderstanding-clarification" that the Samaritan woman and Martha experience. When the Samaritan woman begins her conversation with Jesus, she is told "If only you knew..." (4:10); Jesus, who knows hearts, indicates that she is "not in the know." But she progresses from asking questions (4:9, 12) to perceiving acutely (4:19), to learning important information (4:20-24), and finally to receiving a formal revelation (4:25-26; Neyrey 1994:). In addition to here coming "into the know" when Jesus' "told her everything she ever did" (4:29, 39), she becomes a conduit of information for others. Clearly, she is one of the Johannine heroines, even a foil for the obtuse Nicodemus; she becomes a person very much "in the know." Comparably, Martha experiences an enlightenment. Unlike the Samaritan woman who began her conversation with Jesus "not in the know," Martha begins by knowing two things: "I know that whatever you ask from God, God will give you" (11:22) and "I know that he [Lazarus] will rise again at the resurrection of the dead" (11:24). Yet just as Jesus led the Samaritan woman through "statement" and "misunderstanding" and "clarification," so he leads Martha to a marvelous revelation:

Statement: "Your brother will rise again" (11:23)

Misunderstanding:" I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day" (11:24)

Clarification: "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, even though he die, yet shall he live" (11:25). And once "in the know," she too leads others to Jesus, namely her sister Mary (11:28-29). Thus Martha begins knowing something, but ends knowing very important information about Jesus; she also serves as a conduit of special information. Because she begins the story as a "beloved disciple" (11:5) and receives so important a revelation (11:25-27), she stand a notch higher than the Samaritan woman. Even insiders, then, can be differentiated in terms of what they know.

(3) The man born blind presents another Johannine hero, and especially one who goes from blindness to sight to insight. Blind from birth (9:2) and at first "not in the know" (9:12, 25), he is transformed into a sighted person (9:7) who gains great insight. He comes to know that Jesus is a prophet (9:17); and with others he proclaims, "We know that God does not listen to sinners" (9:31); finally, he knows what others should know: "If this man were not from God, he could do nothing" (9:33). His transformation, moreover, continues when Jesus finds him and reveals himself to him (9:35-38). From knowing nothing, he has progressed to knowing about Jesus and then to acknowledging him. Jesus canonizes him with the remark: "For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see" (9:39). The blind man, precisely because he serves as the narrative foil to the obtuse and unknowing Pharisees (9:39-41), is a type of Johannine character, a hero who makes a bold public confession as well as a person supremely "in the know."

In my estimation, he is portrayed as being more of an insider than the Samaritan woman because of the following. He speaks on behalf of Jesus before hostile crowds and says what he knows. Not only does he contrast with his Pharisaic investigators, he is juxtaposed as well with his parents, who both do not know and are afraid to speak what they know. "We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind; but how he now sees we do not know, nor do we know who opened his eyes" (9:20-21). The author labels his parents cowards when he comments: "His parents said this because they feared the Jews" (9:22) who threatened excommunication to anyone who confessed Jesus to be the Christ. He speaks boldly on behalf of Jesus, saying what he knows, even when it causes his expulsion from the synagogue (9:34). Finally, he receives a Christophany, the central focus of which is revelation of the "Son of man" (9:35), knowledge which Jesus alone imparts (3:13; 8:28; 12:34) and which represents a more esoteric understanding of Jesus than "Messiah." On the basis of what he comes to know, then, the man born blind represents a still inner level of sophistication in the circle of the Johannine disciples. In terms of social ranking within the Johannine group, he should probably be placed alongside Martha because of the quality of his "knowledge" about Jesus.

When all the information about the inner circle of disciples is gathered, we find a correlation between the standing of a disciple within the group and what he knows. For example, in the inaugural appearance of Jesus in 1:35-51 the narrator tells of a series of people who come "into the know," Andrew, Peter, Philip and Nathanael. Let us list what each knows:

Andrew: Where do you stay? (1:38-39)

We have found the Messiah (1:41)

Philip: We found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote (1:45)

Nathanael: Rabbi, you are the Son of God. You are the King of Israel.

Curiously, Peter never says anything about Jesus, so we do not know what he knows at this point. Brown (196?) and others have noted that the knowledge encoded in the Christological titles grows to the climactic response of Nathanael. Nathanael, moreover, is canonized by Jesus as an "Israelite in whom there is no deceit" (1:47); the narrator sees him as a heroic figure who went against his pervious knowledge and study of Scripture to "come and see" for himself. He has the best lines, the juicier part in the drama, and the climactic place in the process. On the narrative level, then, Nathanael is "more in the know" than the others and so we judge him to enjoy a higher status among the group than the others. This inaugural narrative, then, programs the reader to expect certain things: (1) there is growth in knowledge about Jesus, which can be mapped by progress in the titles ascribed to him by his disciples; (2) some disciples simply know more; disciples "in the know" give their knowledge to others; and (4) disciples "in the know" enjoy more status and prestige in the group than those "not in the know" or those with lesser knowledge.

(4) If Nicodemus is to be considered an insider at all, his position among the disciples must be relatively low. He came at night; he has "earthly" knowledge about Jesus; he remains on the level of a question asker, not a revelation receiver; he never shares whatever he knows with anyone. Nicodemus, then, may be a disciple, but one of very limited knowledge and very low status.

(5) Peter provides an interesting test of this hypothesis. In the synoptic gospels, certain details serve to indicate his "knowledge" and his high status: (1) Peter is called first and given a new name; (2) he is privy to special revelations of Jesus, raisings from the dead, transformations on high mountains, special information about tax paying, secrets about the temple and the coming of the Son of man; (3) he is honored as the recipient of directly heavenly revelation about Jesus' identity; and (4) he speaks on behalf of the group.

The Fourth Gospel portrays Peter in quite a different light. He is called second, and not by Jesus himself; his brother Andrew is "first in time" and "first in knowledge" (1:40-41). Thus from the beginning, Peter does not enjoy very high social status within the circle of disciples. When we compare Peter's remarks to Jesus at the crisis with the "dropouts" (Matsunaga ) with the confession at Caesarea Philippi, Peter knows something, but it is not the climactic insight described by the Synoptics, nor is it said to be revealed from heaven.

Mark 8:28-29 John 6:

"Who do you say that I am?" "Do you also wish to go away?"

"You are the Christ." "To whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed and come to know, that you are the Holy One of God."

Yet Peter's remarks in the Fourth Gospel sound quite nondescript as important information about Jesus or public confession of his identity. Although he speaks for all the disciples, the reader does not automatically credit Peter with special status because of the lackluster and low-density knowledge he has. Nathanael he is not!

The Johannine portrait of Peter becomes clearer in the Farewell Address. Four times the reader is told that Peter is "not in the know":

13:7 (concerning the footwashing): "What I am doing you do not know now, but afterwards you will know"

13:24 (concerning the traitor): "Simon Peter beckoned to him and said: 'Tell us who it is of whom he speaks."

13:36 (concerning Jesus' departure): "Lord, where are you going?"

13:37 (concerning Peter's following): "Lord, why cannot I follow you now?"

Yes, he will know later; he will follow later (13:7, 36); but at this narrative point, he is simply "not in the know." In the Synoptics this would not be so damaging a portrayal, but in the Fourth Gospel he is contrasted with a figure who is marvelously "in the know," the Beloved Disciple. And so Peter's lack of information puts him lower on the status ladder than the Beloved Disciples.

The comparison and contrast of Peter and the Beloved Disciple continues in the Fourth Gospel (Neyrey ). At the gate of the high priest's palace, the Beloved Disciple is cast in the role of the "shepherd," while Peter is the "sheep." The BD is "known" to the gatekeeper and has her open the gate to let one of the sheep in. Furthermore, on the morning of the resurrection, the two are again paired and compared. The Beloved Disciple not only runs faster and arrives at the tomb first (20:4-5), but he not only "saw" what Peter saw, he "saw and believed" (20:8), remarks which keep positioning him above Peter in status. Finally, when the disciples are last described together, no body, and certainly not Peter, recognizes Jesus on the shore, except the Beloved Disciple. He shares what he knows with Peter: "That disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, 'It is the Lord'" (21:7). Only at the very ending of what appears to be a final redaction of the gospel do we find Peter ever coming "into the know," and even there the narrator does not explicitly say that Peter understood Jesus. After Jesus ascribed to Peter the role and status of "shepherd" for the group (21:15-17), Jesus reveals to Peter his future: "...when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go" (21:18).

We must, however, examine carefully what is said and not said about Peter here. If shepherd, then Peter should "lay down his life for the sheep," the hallmark of "good shepherds" (10:11, 15). But that aspect of shepherd is absent here from Jesus' remarks. The good shepherd, while a victim of predators, takes an active, bold and public role on behalf of the sheep. Peter is only predicted as suffering a death. Moreover, the narrator does not say whether Peter understood Jesus' remark, just as he did not indicate whether Peter received his requested information about the traitor (13:24). The remark is cryptic; like many of Jesus statements, it is controlled information which is not immediately understandable. We the readers are "in the know" simply because the narrator shares with us the secret: "This he said to show by what death he would glorify God" (21:19). Thus there remains considerable ambiguity about Peter, even at the point that the narrative seems to clarify his precise status in the group. Can we ever confidently say that Peter is "in the know"? Is he ever "in the know" about important Christological matters?

(6) Thus in every instance that the Beloved Disciple appears, he is closer to Jesus physically; he has direct access to very important information; and he comes to insight first among the disciples. He is, moreover, labelled "the disciple whom Jesus loved." He, but not Peter, enjoys very high status, and the index of that status is the information he knows (and shares).

(7) One other disciple deserves consideration in this mapping of the status of insiders. The portrayal of Mary Magdalene on the morning of the resurrection indicates a person who is transformed from a person painfully "not in the know" to someone who is both well informed about great secrets and informs others. She begins the narrative "not in the know":

20:2 "...we do not know where they have laid him"

20:13 "I do not know where they have laid him"

20:14 She did not know that it was Jesus

20:15 Supposing him to be the gardener..."Tell me where you have laid him"

Pained in her lack of information about Jesus and painfully ignorant of who speaks to her ("supposing him to be the gardener"), Mary is transformed immediately into a disciple supremely "in the know." Jesus calls her name, which serves as a revelation to her which pulls back the veil of unknowing: "Mary. . .Rabbi" (20:16). But this knowledge serves as a prelude to the great revelation of one of the most important secrets in the gospel: "Go to my brethren and say to them 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God'" (20:17). As like other disciples "in the know," she serves as a conduit of key Christological information to others, who are also insiders (20:18).

In my scheme of things, Mary enjoys very high status within the Johannine group. She is the first in time to see the Risen Lord; she is transformed into a person who is supremely "in the know" with knowledge of the most important secrets about Jesus ("whither he goes"); and she serves as an authorized conduit of this information to others. Neither Andrew, Peter, Nathanael nor the man born blind are so portrayed. Her knowledge, then, indicates a special status within the group.

In summary, I offer the following diagram which attempts to rank and locate the status of the various disciples of Jesus in terms of two features: their own knowledge of Jesus and the spread of this knowledge to others.

This chart clarifies certain things about the characterization of the disciples. First, not all know the same thing; some know more than others; and some even know the most esoteric of information, viz., "where" Jesus is going. Second, some receive special Christophanies: Jesus "finds" them apart from others, thus a tête-à-tête ensues in which he reveals special secrets to them, often in the form of "I am ..." announcements. Some enjoy a second source of status in virtue of their public confession of Jesus. Finally, genuine insiders all seem to serve as conduits of information to others, although some have more important information to convey than others.

(8) Yet

Disciples (14-16)

*1, s-m-c: Sam (4) and Martha (11)

*2. blind man sees (9)

* come and see: came and saw (1:35ff; 4:27ff; 11: )

3. questions answered (9:2)

5. instruction of the disciples (14-16)

3. Peter comes to know; even revelation 21:18-19

7. Mary Magdalene (20) not in the know to greatly in the know

8. BD

3.3 Secrecy and Scrutiny of Jesus' Words

2.0 Secrecy: the Semantic Word Field. Increasingly New Testament students are turning for information on key terms, not just to concordances or the Kittel TDNT, but to works which present semantic word fields (Danker; Nida and Loew; Darton). Such an approach reminds us that a single linguistic term may be repeated in a document, but may also return in many synonyms; it may also be related to or imply other terms or forms (all commands expect obedience; all questions expect answers). Moreover, because language must be understood in terms of cultural systems (Malina), individual terms may imply a "system" operating in the culture (i.e., sorcery accusation system; patronage system, and the like). The following is an attempt to build a semantic word field for "secrecy." Not all of the terms cited are found in the Fourth Gospel, but notice of them serves to complete our view of secrecy and sensitizes us to the extent of the secrecy system.

Hide, Hidden

- kalyptô, kalymma

- kryptô-kryptos

- lanthanô

2. Reveal, Show, Open

- apokalyptô-apokalypsis - phaneroô-phaneros

- deiknymi, endeiknymi - dêloô

- phainô - epiphainô, epiphania

- anaggelô - gnôrizô

- sêmainô - chrematizô

- anoigô - anaptyssô

Private and Public

- lathra and en kryptôi/parrêsia

3. True and False

- alêthês and alêthinos/pseudos and plastos

5. Lying, Liar, Lies

- pseudomi, pseduos, pseutês

- pseudo- apostolos, martys, prophêtes, christus

3. Secrets

- mysterion, ainigma, paroimia, ta krypta

7. Deceiving, Deceiver, Deceit

- planaô, planês - deleazô

- doloô, dolos - paralogizomai

- hypokritês, hypokrisis - apataô

- methodeia - panourgia

- goês - kybeia

8. Appearances, Appear, Seem

- dokeô - kata sarka

- prophasis - prospoieomai

-

9. Silence

-siagô

10. Interpret, Count (as), Reckon (as)

- exêgeomai - logizomai

dealing with the phenomenon of espionage in the New Testament.

1. Spy, Spying

- kataskopos/kataskopiazô (Heb 11:31; Gal 2:4)

- egkathiêmi (Luke 20:20)

- pareisaktos (Gal 2:4)

- katopteuô/katoptês

- skpiazomai/skopos/diaskopiazomai

2. Trap, Catch

- agreuô (Mark 12:13)

3. Cleverness, Craftiness

- panourgos/panourgia

- dolos

4. Report, Betray, Act as Traitor

- paradidos/paradidômi

In addition, there are many terms for (a) questioning (eromai, exereeinô, exetazô, anakrinô, erôtaô/dierôtaô, pynthanomai), (2) investigating (exetazô, anazêteô, anakrinô, skopeô/diaskopeô, ereunaô/diexereunaô, akriboô/diakriboô, mikrologeomai), and (3) inquire (exetaô, zêteô, eromai, munthanomai, erôtaô). We know of curious people (philopeuthês/philopeustos, lichnos, periergos) and busybodies (allotriepiskopos, 1 Peter 4:15) and gossips (phlyaros, 1 Tim 5:13). Furthermore, the ordinary semantic forms of asking questions to get information should be included, whether this is done informally or by a judicial body or by spies.

Disciples (14-16)

*1, s-m-c: Sam (4) and Martha (11)

*2. blind man sees (9)

*3. come and see: came and saw (1:35ff; 4:27ff; 11: )

4. questions answered (9:2)

5. instruction of the disciples (14-16)

6. Peter comes to know; even revelation 21:18-19

7. Mary Magdalene (20) not in the know to greatly in the know

8. BD

6.3 Secrecy and Scrutiny of Jesus' Words

Return to A Selection of Jerome H. Neyrey's Articles


Return to Jerome H. Neyrey's HomePage

Jerome H. Neyrey