Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 16:33:48 BST
From: Richard Ashcroft <R.E.Ashcroft-AT-liverpool.ac.uk>
Subject: betrayal


Hello again,
Thanks to AKM Adam for correcting my refs to Josephus, since
it certainly makes a difference that the situation I attributed to 
J was in fact merely reported by him.  Although, this underlines
the point  suggested earlier about "witnessing" as scholars: I
witness incorrectly, and without checking my copy of Josephus,
which is shoddy, though not immoral (?).  And further, Josephus
gives an account which may or may not be tendentious in matters
of fact, but is certainly "self-serving" in its context.  Which is somewhat
worse than shoddy - but how much so?  This reminds me just
how difficult it is to instance a differend - in many cases, differends are
illusory simply because accurate reporting of matters on public record
would "collapse" them.
I am uneasy about letting the matter of Josephus's self-serving rest
there, however.  Not only because, as a loser in this war (albeit one
who jumped ship rather earlier than we would like) he has to make the 
best of his situation (like anyone defeated in a war); but also because
how could a report of his own action at Jotapata _not_ be self-serving,
and yet at the same time valuable witness to (others') heroism?
If there is a differend here, then it is at the level of moral evaluation,
rather than at the level of factual reporting.  But it is possible that
there is no differend at all, that J was simply a rat, that he was not
"merely making the best of a bad situation" but sucking up to the
Romans, because no Jew would have anything to do with him any
longer.  Reading J, I incline to the latter version as a matter of fact,
but to the former as a useful fiction for illustrating JFL's thought.  In 
which case, the matter of whether this case was thinkable
historically - could they have recognised this as a differend? And I think
they could have done, because J is trading on this in order for his
self-serving to work!  He sees that he could be accused of betrayal, 
and wants us to see it instead as witness.

When I wrote "Christianity is a grand narrative where Judaism is not",
I was not intending to be glib, but if that's how it looks, I'm sorry.  I think
Lyotard himself sees it this way, and I think that he would occasionally
say that Judaism is "pagan" in the sense he uses the word.  But this
is my query to the list - am I right about Lyotard? As to the theological
and comparative religion point, well I'm very interested to know,
but I guess that's for "Off-list" discussion (which I would welcome).

So far as gate-keeping is concerned, that's not my or anyone's
business: nevertheless, if I compare Levinas with postmodernists
who self-label as such, I am constantly struck by the differences.  This
is not to say that he cannot or should not be used by pomo theory:
simply that this is a use, and needs marking.

OK: I've tried everyone's patience enough today, and sorry for the
inaccuracies.