Secrecy

Reflections on Neyrey's article on secrecy and the GoJ.

Right off the bat the article challenges a non-social scientific reading of the text. What's really lurking behind the words of the gospel?

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.

This is pretty interesting, and not just because so often in Western Christianity Jesus is held up as a model. Jesus, it is said, was honest, kind, nice, devout, etc. What would Jesus do? But maybe that question is really, 'What would our ahistorical Jesus do?' A God of 'love' and 'truth', it is said, would NEVER lie. (See also Ex. 20:16. I suspect that 'neighbor' means 'Israelite/kin'.)

I'm a little disappointed that Neyrey didn't sum up Pilch's work on lying, but that's really no problem--further research is expected. But on that point, there is an important note about honorable lying to be made. See the latter half of this Tekton article for a brief note.

Anyway, the know/not know dichotomy is interesting. It divides more than one might think; the educated from the uneducated; the 'cool' from the 'uncool', likewise the 'in' from the 'out'. Something I constantly see is siblings having information control from their parents.

I'm curious to know how revealing information was done. What was the criteria for revealing to outsiders? Kinship was one. Tobit 5:9-14:

Tobiah went back to tell his father Tobit what had happened. He said to him, "I have just found a man who is one of our own Israelite kinsmen!" Tobit said, "Call the man, so that I may find out what family and tribe he comes from, and whether he is trustworthy enough to travel with you, son." Tobiah went out to summon the man, saying, "Young man, my father would like to see you." When Raphael entered the house, Tobit greeted him first. [...] Tobit asked, "Brother, tell me, please, what family and tribe are you from?" Raphael said: "Why? Do you need a tribe and a family? Or are you looking for a hired man to travel with your son?" Tobit replied, "I wish to know truthfully whose son you are, brother, and what your name is." Raphael answered, "I am Azariah, son of Hananiah the elder, one of your own kinsmen." Tobit exclaimed: "Welcome! God save you, brother! Do not be provoked with me, brother, for wanting to learn the truth about your family. So it turns out that you are a kinsman, and from a noble and good line! I knew Hananiah and Nathaniah, the two sons of Shemaiah the elder; with me they used to make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, where we would worship together. No, they did not stray from the right path; your kinsmen are good men. You are certainly of good lineage, and welcome!" (emphasis mine)

Kinship all over the place. Tobit is looking for a trustworthy man to travel with his son, and "Azariah"'s lineage tells him all he needs to know. But it seems that Jesus didn't have strict use of kinship as a criteria, as John 4:7-39 says:

The woman said to Him, "I know that Messiah is coming (He who is called Christ); when that One comes, He will declare all things to us." Jesus said to her, "I who speak to you am He." ... So the woman left her waterpot, and went into the city and said to the men, "Come, see a man who told me all the things that I have done; this is not the Christ, is it?" ... From that city many of the Samaritans believed in Him because of the word of the woman who testified, "He told me all the things that I have done."

It's interesting that Jesus let a Samaritan woman into his information network. Not just because she wasn't Jewish, but it was a she. Those who are 'in the know' have higher status, so she did as well.

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." (2.2)

If we attempt to plot out status and role within a group, who knows something can often serve as an index of public standing. (2.4.1)

But it seems that much knowledge was only revealed to the disciples (1.2). Neyrey's bit on why some aren't in the know (1.4) give some clues; merely negate the statements: those who have knowledge revealed prefer the light to the darkness, or they are chosen by the Father. Right now I can't see how that's much of a criteria, but it may be claimed that this knowledge was revealed to Jesus by the Father. Neyrey says,

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). (3.2)

So maybe the criteria is an appropiate response to the information given.