Critical Review of E. Raymond Capt’s “Israel Judah and Jew”, Part 2
In analyzing Capt’s essay on three different entities, it appears his teachings are skewed because he identified only (1) “Israel”, (2) “Judah”, (3) and “Jew”! Because the term “jew” is so extraordinarily misleading, it might be better to distinguish Judean, Judaism and Kenite-Edomite-Canaanite-jew. By doing so, it would send a strong signal that might startle the reader or hearer into inquiring what such terms could mean. The best thing to do with the term “jew” is to avoid it like the plague. But if one cannot avoid it, at least use it in a definitive way, which Capt failed to do!
I will now return to where I left off in part #1 of this topic quoting from E. Raymond Capt’s 4-book series Biblical Antiquities, book 2, chapter 4, pp. 37-48:
“Abraham and Isaac were Hebrews, but they were neither Israelites nor Jews. The twelve sons of Jacob were Hebrews and Israelites, but they were not Jews. The same may be said of Moses and Aaron, the people of the Northern Kingdom, and Elijah and Elisha. To avoid confusion over the expression ‘Israel,’ it is necessary to determine in which sense it is used in any particular passage, whether it means (1) the whole of the twelve tribes, (2) the House of Judah alone as being part of the twelve tribes, or (3) the Ten-Tribed Kingdom.
[Critical note by Clifton A. Emahiser: When Capt stated above: “The twelve sons of Jacob were Hebrews and Israelites, but they were not Jews”, he shouldn’t have turned around at other places in this essay and contradicted himself time and again! However, it is recorded that Judah himself, and some of his descendants, did mix with the Canaanites, but all the bastard offspring from such a union were rejected, as Cain was exiled to wandering. Read Ezra and Nehemiah!] – back to Capt:
“Point 5 – Ten-Tribed Israel were never called Jews in the Bible.
“Nothing can be more unscriptural than to call all Israelites, ‘Jews.’ It is as absurd as calling all Americans, ‘Californians.’ Most Israelites are not Jews, because they are the descendants of the other tribes of Israel.
[Critical note by Clifton A. Emahiser: Capt just got through writing: “Most Israelites are not Jews, because they are the descendants of the other tribes of Israel.” Is Capt saying here that some of the house of Israel were “jews”? What does Capt mean about the word “most”? And what does Capt mean by the phrase “other tribes”? What “other tribes of Israel”? Capt isn’t making any sense here!] – back to Capt:
“The term ‘Jew’ was never used until more than a thousand years after Abraham. It appears for the first time in II Kings, chapter 16, verses 5-6, where we are told that the king of Israel, together with the king of Syria, made war against the king of Judah. Now since, in this passage, Israel, one kingdom, made war against the Jews, another kingdom, how can they both be Jews? The Scriptures never once refer to the ten-tribed House of Israel as ‘the Jews,’ neither past, present nor future. The term, ‘the Jews,’ never in God’s Word applied to the twelve tribes collectively, nor to the ten-tribed House of Israel.
[Critical note by Clifton A. Emahiser: There is a serious problem with Capt’s citation of 2 Kings 16:5-6 above! The mistranslated term “jew” in verse 6 is Strong’s #3064 thusly:
“3064. ... Yehûwdîy, yeh-hoo-dee´; patronymic from 3063; a Jehudite (i.e. Judaite or Jew), or descendant of Jehudah (i.e. Judah):– ....” Note: The definition of “patronymic” is: “Patronymic. name derived from father’s name.” Since it is not Biblically recorded that Judah had a descendant by the name of “jew”, this term is a misnomer! Further, it should be pointed out that “Judah” at his birth, Gen. 29:35, is Strong’s #3063 (it’s not “yeh” but “yah”, like in Yahweh):
“3063. ... Yehûwdâh, yeh-hoo-daw´; from 3034; celebrated [i.e., be praised]; Jehudah (or Judah), the name of five Israelites; also of the tribe descended from the first, and of its territory:– [in the KJV as] Judah.” Note: Because the “jews” are descended from Cain, among other evil peoples they are vagabonds, and have no territory!] – back to Capt:
“In Jeremiah, chapter 13, verse 11, nearly four hundred years after the tribes were divided by God into the two kingdoms, ‘the Whole House of Israel’ and ‘the Whole House of Judah’ are both spoken of in the same verse, proving that neither House without the other constitutes all of the Lord’s chosen people.
[Critical note by Clifton A. Emahiser: Here Capt is quoting Jer. 13:11, without checking out all of the Hebrew words; in this particular instance the word translated “whole” in the English. In the Hebrew, it is Strong’s #3605 thusly:
“3605. ... kôl, kole ... or kôwl, kole; from 3634; properly the whole; but often in the plural sense):– ....”
“3634. ... kâlal, kaw-lal´; a primitive root to complete:– Rendered in the KJV as: (make) perfect ...” In English the term “whole” is defined as: “(1) being in healthy or sound condition, (2) having all its parts or elements, entire; complete; intact. (3) constituting the total sum of .... (6) having both parents in common.” Definition 7 of the entry for “whole” in the online Merriam Webster dictionary confirms this.) The term “jew”, being of mixed origin, hardly fits this description!] – back to Capt:
“The 37th chapter of the Book of Ezekiel clearly points out the separation of the House of Israel and the House of Judah. They are symbolically referred to as two sticks presently separated, but would some day, after the captivity and scattering among the heathen, be reunited into one nation. We read in verses 16 and 17: ‘Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick and write upon it, for Judah and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, for Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the House of Israel his companions. And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.’
“Continuing in verses 21-22: ‘And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God: Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land. And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel: and one king shall be king to them all, and they shall be no more two nations; neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all.’
“Thus, we see that the two houses were separate, but they would not always remain that way. Notice that one of the sticks represents the Sceptre people and the other the Birthright people. Judah, the inheritor of the Sceptre is only a half brother to Joseph, the inheritor of the Birthright. The Sceptre and the Birthright inheritors are two families with different mothers. How could the distinction between the Sceptre and the Birthright families of Judah and Israel be more emphatic?
[Critical note by Clifton A. Emahiser: Here Capt is forming a premise concerning the two houses of (1) Israel and (2) Judah by making the statement: “Notice that one of the sticks represents the Sceptre people and the other the Birthright people. Judah, the inheritor of the Sceptre is only a half brother to Joseph, the inheritor of the Birthright. The Sceptre and the Birthright inheritors are two families with different mothers.” I would like to key in on the following: “Judah, the inheritor of the Sceptre is only a half brother to Joseph .... The Sceptre and the Birthright inheritors are two families with different mothers.” Here Capt is attempting to separate as much as possible the two houses of Judah and Israel of the twelve tribes. First of all the phrase “half brother” cannot be found anywhere in the Bible, although it might be implied in some texts. Let’s take a look at this “half brother” thing from a scientific viewpoint, as today we know more about DNA and chromosomes in the subject of genetics.
I will repeat part of what I stated in part #1 of this review, ‘Capt utterly fails to grasp how closely Judah is genetically related to the house of Israel! Jacob, by his first wife, Leah, fathered Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar and Zebulun, all of whom formed tribes in the house of Israel, with the exception of Judah ... That means that Judah and his five brothers all had identical nuclear DNA (which is the same principal that allows a Levirate marriage possible among the twelve tribes) ... Not only that, but Leah and Rachel were sisters with identical oocyte ovarian DNA! Genetically, that would make Judah and Joseph very closely related indeed.’ With this evidence, Judah was close to being a full genetic brother to Joseph!] – back to Capt:
“God divided the Abrahamic promises among Jacob’s twelve sons, and when He said, through Jacob, that ‘Ephraim’s seed shall become a multitude of nations,’ He was not referring to the Jews who never have, nor ever will be ‘a multitude of nations.’ God was speaking to the Birthright heirs. The ‘nation and a company of nations,’ promised in Genesis, chapter 35, verse 11, was a Birthright blessing to be fulfilled in the last days before Christ’s return to Joseph and his descendants, as recorded in I Chronicles, chapter 5, verse 1-2. In Jeremiah, chapter 31, verse 9, God said, ‘Ephraim is my firstborn,’ and in Genesis, chapter 48, verse 19, Jacob said of Ephraim: ‘his seed shall become a multitude of nations.’ This was just the opposite of what was said of Judah in Jeremiah, chapter 40, verses 11-12: ‘He shall become a remnant.’ That this promise to Israel was not to Judah is proven by the fact that Judah has never been a multitude of nations, and never will be.
[Critical note by Clifton A. Emahiser: It is clear here that Capt is trying to lower Judah down to the lowest possible denominator (i.e., part of a fraction below the line). Capt just got through stating: “That this promise to Israel was not to Judah is proven by the fact that Judah has never been a multitude of nations, and never will be.” However, Capt neglected to go back to Gen. 35:11 where this promise was first mentioned to Jacob:
“10 And Elohim said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel. 11 And Elohim said unto him, I am Elohim Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins ...”
This is unconditional confirmation that when Yahweh addressed Jacob-Israel: “... be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee ...”, the Almighty was speaking collectively of the future houses of Israel and Judah, as when the Almighty made this declaration, the houses of Israel and Judah were not yet in existence!
In part #1 of this review, Capt stated: “The Bible tells us that Judah would be ‘few in number,’ but it tells us that Israel would be as the sands of the sea for multitudes, so writes Hosea, chapter 1, verse 10.” I replied that had Capt read the next verse at Hosea 1:11, he would have discovered that it states: “Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel.” Question: How does the context change from Israel only at verse 10, and suddenly change to include both Judah and Israel at verse 11?
From critical review #1, I stated: ‘Surely, when the census at I Sam. 11:8 was taken, the families of Zarah-Judah had already migrated to the Dardanelles area, also known as Hellespont, and became the Trojans. Therefore, the ‘thirty thousand’ mentioned doesn’t represent all of the ‘men of Judah’, but only include the men of Pharez-Judah with a remnant of Zarah-Judah! ... Capt should have known better, as he has written extensively about Zarah-Judah!’]– back to Capt:
“The book of Micah plainly teaches that the Jews who ‘halted’ were to become a ‘remnant,’ while Israel ‘that was cast far off’ was to become ‘a strong nation,’ as written in Micah, chapter 4, verse 7. It is important to notice that neither the major nor the minor prophets appear in the Old Testament until about 200 years after the division of the twelve tribes into two nations. What then did they find was the condition of God’s chosen race? Was there any sign of amalgamation among them? No, the prophets found them still divided into two nations. They had separate kings, separate administrations, separate national alliances, and, of course, separate national titles. The national title of the ten tribes was ‘Israel’ or ‘Ephraim,’ because the tribe of Ephraim had become the tribe of the Birthright due to the sin of Reuben. The national title of the other two tribes was ‘Judah,’ a remnant of which were later called the Jews....
[Critical note by Clifton A. Emahiser: Some of this is true, but this doesn’t change the fact that Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Issachar and Zebulun of the northern ten tribes of Israel were full brothers to Judah, and Judah’s descendants through Pharez and Zarah! And those who “were later called the Jews” were the Edomite proselytes who were converted to Israelite customs under Hyrcanus, whom we now call Edomte-jews! Capt also misreads Micah.] – back to Capt:
“It was during this state of affairs that the prophets commenced their ministry, some residing in Israel’s territory and others in Judah’s territory. The prophets addressed these two nations by the names that God gave them: ‘Israel,’ being the title which the Northern Nation had decided to retain, and ‘Judah,’ being the title which the Southern Nation had decided to assume. Hence, we find that all through their writings, whether warning, rebuking, directing or consoling, and whether their words were historical or prophetical, the prophets recognized the separate condition of the two nations and accordingly addressed them by their chosen and wellknown national titles.
“It is known through Bible history that the House of Israel, together with a large portion of the House of Judah, were taken into Assyrian captivity around 721 B.C., while those of Judah in Jerusalem were carried away into Babylonian captivity some 133 years later, around 588 B.C. We know that only a portion of these latter people returned seventy years later in answer to Nehemiah’s call to rebuild the temple. The people of Israel as a whole never returned except for a small group, a representation of the House of Israel....
[Critical note by Clifton A. Emahiser: Capt recognizes Judah in the Assyrian captivity. But he does not realize that the promises to Israel and Judah in Genesis were fulfilled by Zarah-Judah and Judah taken captive by Assyria, not by the remnant in Judaea which had a different purpose.] – back to Capt:
“Orthodox Jews, even to this day, know that they do not represent the ten-tribed House of Israel. On the day of the Feast of Trumpets and on the day of Atonement, they include in their prayers Jeremiah, chapter 31, verse 20, and pray that Ephraim-Israel, that is, the ten tribes, may be united with them.
“The Rabbi, Dr. Hertz of London, says: ‘People known at present as Jews are descendants of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin ... we look forward to the gathering of all the tribes at some future date.’ The learned Isaac Leiser says that ‘the Israelitish nation was left in banishment after the return of the Jews from Babylon.’ Professor Neubauer wrote: ‘The hope of the return of the ten tribes has never ceased among the Jews in exile.’ Josephus, a Jew, and loyal to Jewish history and tradition, wrote about 70 A.D., or about 700 years after the captivity of ten-tribed Israel, as follows: ‘The ten tribes did not return to Palestine; only two tribes served the Romans after Palestine became a Roman province.’ ...
[Critical note by Clifton A. Emahiser: Josephus was not of the tribe of Judah, but was a Levite!] – back to Capt:
“Point 7 – Ten-Tribed Israel is a non-Jewish people.
“The separation into the two nations took place many years before any of the major or minor prophets wrote; therefore, the ‘Israel’ known to Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the minor prophets, our Lord, the Evangelists and the Apostles had no tribe of Judah in it. Israel, as known to all these writers, was a non-Jewish people. Israel has remained a non-Jewish people to this day. The amalgamation theory is hopelessly discredited in the presence of the Bible. The closing books of Bible history leave Israel and Judah in separation from each other, while Bible prophecy keeps them separated until reconciled and united in the Kingdom Age.[ Would this also separate Christ from His disciples? C.A.E.]
“Hosea’s statement, in Hosea, chapter 1, verse 10, reveals that Israel shall be ‘as the sand of the sea which cannot be measured or numbered.’ This statement is not made concerning Judah. In Hosea, chapter 1, verse 11, we read: ‘Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land; for great shall be the day of Jezreel.’ Did the two nations of captives ‘gather together’ and amalgamate while in the lands of their captivities? Did they ‘together appoint themselves one head’ when the small remnant of Judah returned from Babylon? Both Ezra and Nehemiah, who were the historians of the Babylonian return, inform us that this was not the case. [Note: Ezra and Nehemiah considered the cases of Zarah-Judah, and Judah taken captive by the Assyrians, rather than the remnant returning from Babylon to Jerusalem. C.A.E.]
“Ezra, chapter 2, verse 1, shows us that those who returned to Jerusalem were all from one province. This word is in the singular. This is proof that the House of Israel, who were captive not in this ‘province’ but in another country, did not return. [Note: But neither did most of Judah! C.A.E.]
“Also in the Book of Ezra, which mentions the two tribes that returned, none of the ten tribes were listed. In the Book of Nehemiah, which states that only Judah and Benjamin returned, none of the ten tribes are mentioned.
“It is important to understand that in Scriptures the terms Israel, Judah, and Jew are not synonymous. It is equally important to understand that the House of Israel is not synonymous with the House of Judah. The course of history is widely divergent for the peoples properly classified under each of these titles. When God speaks in prophecy to the House of Israel or the House of Judah, He does not refer to the modern Jewish nation of the State of Israel, or the Israelis, which is recognized as a racially mixed nation. Its citizens are drawn from many nations and races that adopted Judaism as early as the 8th and 9th centuries A.D. [sic 130 B.C. C.A.E.]
“Modern Jewry can be grouped into two main sections. The Ashkenazim section of European Jews is by far the greater. Reliable Hebrew authorities have computed that over 90% of all modern Jews belong to this division, the members of which have been drawn from many nations during the centuries of western migrations.
“The Sephardim, or true Spanish Jews, derive from ancestors who settled in Spain, Portugal, and North Africa from the time of Nebuchadnezzar’s destruction of Jerusalem. Racially, they are much less mixed than the Ashkenazim, despite a North African Sephardic element.
[Critical note by Clifton A. Emahiser: Notice here that Capt is saying that the “Sephardim, or true Spanish Jews’ ... ‘are much less mixed than the Ashkenazim’! To be a true Judahite, one’s race must be unmixed (not less or more), but pure!] – back to Capt:
“To summarize, the prophets display meticulous care in their addresses to the ‘House of Israel’ and the ‘House of Judah.’ To apply to one House a prophecy which refers to the other is clearly to misapply the message and confuse the issue. By failing to treat the ‘House of Israel’ and the ‘House of Judah’ as separate entities, the prophetic books of the Bible are set at variance with one another. Without this distinction, the words of one prophet nullify the pronouncements of a fellow prophet. It makes Isaiah call into question the prophecies of Jeremiah, and causes Jeremiah to impugn the declaration of Hosea.
“It sets Joel against Amos, Zephaniah against Zechariah, and makes Ezekiel contradict them all. Examples of such failure to make a distinction between the two Houses are found in the paraphrasing of the modern Living Bible, which leaves the truth-seeker bereft of understanding. [Note: This is true, but Capt presents many further problems as he also misreads these Scriptures. C.A.E. – End of Capt’s essay.]