The Netanyahus: An Account of a Minor and Ultimately Even Negligible Episode in the History of a Very Famous Family

Within the opening paragraphs of Chapter 9, the reader is confronted with a paradox of theological and scholastic criticism. Ruben and Ben-Zion are on their way to the seminary for Ben-Zion to give his trial Bible lesson. Ruben ruminates on his past experiences when he attended seminary and how the time allowed him a chance to meditate. He then states that the benediction is a paradox, which is revelatory about his Jewish/secular beliefs and a critique of the university: “Let us go forth and pursue truth, in Jesus’s name, Amen” (164). Of course, as a member of Judaism, Ruben does not believe in the messianic status of Jesus of Nazareth; therefore, to seek truth in the name of a deity he does not believe in appears paradoxical. However, the sentence goes beyond that when coupled with Ben-Zion’s opinion of Dr. Huggles after Ben-Zion has proven the man deals in fraudulence, i.e., acting as though he could understand Hebrew. Ruben’s demand that Ben-Zion stop antagonizing Dr. Huggles results in Ben-Zion providing a chiasmic answer: “Rube, I’ll shut up when you tell me: is this man a fool (narr) in a college of liars (ligners) or a liar in a college of fools?” (170). This sentence, coupled with Ruben’s paradox, begins a discourse on the contradiction of seeking truth within the university system. As the book continues, there is more evidence to support this argument, especially when Dr. Hillard reveals in the following chapter his opinion on the purpose of history: to support the political system.

In Chapter 9 and 10, Ben-Zion’s antagonistic role and that he is not there solely to antagonize Ruben about his Jewishness becomes increasingly evident. Ben-Zion also offers a critique of American society and the American university system in a Socratic manner. He places questions and counterexamples designed to spark introspection before the other characters. In conjunction with the above examples is Ben-Zion’s overall critique of not only the interview he is subjected to but also to the idea of professors teaching subjects on which they are not experts. His greatest criticism is the assumption Dr. Huggles makes about his ability to teach the Bible, assuming that because he is Jewish he must know the Bible well, especially since he speaks Hebrew. It’s a falsehood based on vanity: Dr. Huggles likes the idea of being able to advertise that the seminary has a Jewish professor who speaks Hebrew as a member of the faculty, regardless of the expertise that professor may or may not have on the subject of the Bible and Christian doctrine. Furthermore, Ben-Zion is disappointed in the superficial questions posed to him during the interview. Not one of the faculty asked him detailed questions about his research discovered. Ruben doesn’t ask any questions and feels Ben-Zion was too uncivil and ungrateful in his behavior. Dr. Hillard was worried about Ben-Zion’s political views, especially regarding his membership in the NZO and socialist groups in Israel. Dr. Kimmel and Dr. Galbraith only wanted to know how Ben-Zion’s research had been received by the Jewish community, which is not something a single Jewish person can determine. This questioning indicates how the non-Jewish faculty find the Jewish faculty interchangeable and do not recognize them as individuals. All in all, Ben-Zion is keenly aware that the interview had nothing to do with his abilities and knowledge regarding historical research and everything to do with him as a Jewish person.

Regarding Dr. Hillard’s questioning of Ben-Zion, it should be remembered that the 1950s were a turbulent decade in American politics and foreign policy. It was the beginning of the Cold War era, and Senator Joseph McCarthy lent his name to the practice of reporting people to the government for communism or ties to communist groups. The Korean War had ended in a draw, and the fear of communist subversion resulted in the blacklisting, imprisonment, and political isolation of many accused of being communist sympathizers. The Rosenbergs were executed in 1953 for supplying the Soviets with nuclear information. Thus, Dr. Hillard’s question wasn’t designed to be antisemitic, rather it reflects the political fears extant in the 1950s, and more importantly, his question passively addresses one of the novel’s major themes: the interpretation and utility of history. Dr. Hillard blatantly states his interpretation of history and how he uses it to support American policy and tradition. Ben-Zion’s perspective is that the Jews were in a unique spot to reinterpret historical events because of centuries of subjugation and antisemitism. A Jewish perspective of American history would be antithetical to Dr. Hillard’s design regarding historical interpretation. Ben-Zion knows this is what Dr. Hillard is actually driving at and does as much as tell him: “Today, in America, I suspect that revisionism means much the same, only within the context of another power structure” (187). Ben-Zion then proceeds to deconstruct Dr. Hillard’s implications. Ben-Zion admits his reputation of being an agitator, but he uses historical precedence to first illustrate the different meanings of the word Bolshevik to segue into the etymology of the word revisionism, which “the true meaning of the word is that it has no meaning. It merely takes on the meaning of all who employ it, each to his own agenda” (187). This illustration of the word going beyond its denotation to symbolize the political perspectives of those who use the word is then used for Ben-Zion to associate that idea of revisionism with the epithet of Jew. He argues the use of the word has nothing to do with culture, race, heritage, or religion but rather with the political, ideological, racial, antisemitic views of the person uttering the word. In essence, the revisionism of vocabulary parallels the utility and uses of historical research.