jACOB: bEHIND the fENCE Part I
by
Lisa Rudisill
Submitted to
Liberty Theological Seminary
In Completion of
Requirements for
Admission to Doctoral Theology Program
Table of Contents
Introduction * Jacob, the Person * Jacob, the Traveler * Jacob, Selective Breeder of Stock *
The Basic Understanding of the Passage * The Issue of Superstition in the Passages * A Jewish Explanation *
Some Modern Finds on Horse Breeding * Development of Charioteering and the Breeding of Horses *
What Did the Horse of Jacob's Time Look Like? * A New Explanation: Jacob's Deception *
An Unusual Interpretation: Might The Animals Have Even Been Zebras? * Confusion in Translation of Genesis 30:35 *
Can Zebras be Domesticated? * Clearing the Confusion * What is Lost in the Re-Telling of the Tale? Addendum
(Unless otherwise specified, all biblical references used come from the Holy Bible, Authorized King James Version.)
Introduction
“And the angel of God spoke unto me in a dream, saying, Jacob: And I said, Here am I.” Genesis 31:11
The story of Jacob, father of of the Israelites, is a complex, amazing tale that spans the entire lifetime of this patriarch who claims the distinct role of, essentially, father of the Jewish race, for it was from the many sons of Jacob and his several wives that were woven the various tribes of Israel and the peoples who now call themselves “Jewish” across the entire globe. It is also a story that shows—as with Abraham and Moses—the depths of a leading figure in Hebrew-Judeo theology who had the most intimate of relationships with God known to mankind. This speaks, most likely, to his importance in the scheme of God's plans as well as to the value and accord which God must have placed upon this unusual man and his family.
Given the undoubted great importance of Jacob, what is generally known about him and how is the story of Jacob interpreted? What are the general meanings of the story and what are the overall impressions that might be drawn? Are there certain particularly important parts of the story which deserve special reading and attention? These are difficult questions needing answers.
In an unusual perspective on the known interpretations of Jacob's activities as recorded in the book of Genesis, it is proposed that an entirely new and different reading be placed upon the actions of Jacob recorded in Genesis 30 and 31 which will elicit unusual implications derived from these conclusions. In fact, through this unique interpretation the case can be made that Jacob, the patriarch, was shown through the Scripture to have been the first recorded “selective breeder” of animals. If given a liberal interpretation of Scripture that would seem to more logically explain the “odd” presentation of passages in which the narrative details a breeding system Jacob used as herdsman that produced a flourishing, healthy herd, it is possible to view the scriptural account in Genesis 30:35-31:10 in light of a form of “trickery” by Jacob—perhaps divinely-inspired—which brought justice for Laban's own huge deception with his daughters.
As a further side-note of this idea, it is also a suggestion that Jacob and Laban may, in fact, have even been raising horses; in addition, if interpreted loosely, they may have been breeding modern horses from zebras.
Jacob, the Person
Jacob is most often conceived of by biblical scholars as a character who is not unfamiliar with the finer points of human interaction as well as its difficulties; in effect, Jacob is known to be able to use skillful manners of deception when the situation requires it. This most likely came about because of his own need to maintain his place in the world.
Jacob was born the second of twins whose own special personality seemed to be “in process” before he entered the world, for it is known that he was born clutching the heel of his brother, Esau, as they exited the womb of mother, Rebekah. Thus, Jacob was given the name “Ya'aqov el,” interpreted to mean in Hebrew, “protected by God.” This is derived from the Hebrew root “eqov,” meaning “heel.” Later in his life, he was renamed Israel, or “Ya'isra el,” meaning “one who struggles with God” (following the wrestling in the night he did with an angel upon his returning to his homeland).
From the beginning, it seemed that Jacob was the frail one, and the brother who had to learn special techniques of survival such as grabbing hold of his brother's heel to be born, for perhaps he could not have been born of his own strength. 1 If, in fact, Jacob was the more frail brother, perhaps this turn of events might help explain the decision by his mother, Rebekah, to “take his side,” which she seems to have done with some skill. Rebekah aided him in perpetrating a deceit upon his father, Isaac, whose sight had dimmed, when she had Jacob visit his father in his tent, using a goat skin to give him the impression that he was his hairier brother, Esau, the eldest, and obtaining from Isaac the coveted birthright, which would afford Jacob the status of the family inheritance. At the end of this deception, Rebekah sent Jacob quickly away to her family's home in search of a bride—and perhaps, also, to help him escape the wrath of his stronger brother, Esau, who was certain to have been angered at the deception played out by both his brother and his mother.
Jacob had learned before establishing his own manhood the intricacies and difficulties of survival in the world, along with some special techniques for how to establish one's own place in the world, aided by his mother, Rebekah. These lessons would prove vital in the coming years as he dealt with new challenges in raising his own family. In addition, it is obvious throughout the narrative of Jacob, that God, through his angels, was helping to make Jacob's life successful, working to warn or communicate facts to Jacob, and aiding in his survival in difficult times.
Jacob, the Traveler
It is believed from references within Genesis that Jacob spent much of his early life in or near Beer-lahai-roi (Genesis 24:62), an area in southeastern Israel which his father, Isaac, and mother, Rebekah, made their habitation. This settlement, located below the present Gaza strip and inland, was in the upper Middle Sinai Peninsula2. As stated earlier, he was sent on a journey at the behest of his mother which took him northward—a journey to the lands of his ancestry to find a wife from the locale of his mother's family, travelling to the region of Paddan-Aram and finally to the town of Haran where Rebekah's brother, Laban, Jacob's uncle, made his abode. Before he had completed his journey, Jacob had covered a distance of over 700 miles to achieve the location where he would spend the next 20 vital years of his life.
The location of Haran is north and slightly eastward of modern day Israel and Lebanon; it is in the region that is northern Syria and near the still current city of Aleppo, not far from the borders with Turkey and northern Iraq. This location is also in the region of the Caucasus Mountains in southern Russia and bordering countries.
Interestingly, Moody's Bible Atlas noted there could be some question regarding Abraham's home city. It is known that Abraham came from the city of Ur, but it was noted that though it is most often assumed that this is the well-known city of Ur located in area of Kuwait, it is possible that the Ur referred to was another city in this region of Syria. The argument for this is that Abraham's home is referred to as “Ur of the Chaldees” in Genesis 11:28; Moody scholars believe that it would be unusual to qualify the location as “of the Chaldees” if there were not a reason. Though there are references to the Chaldeans in relation to southern Mesopotamia, the area of the well-known Ur in Sumeria, these were not until the ninth century—after the time of the patriarchs. The suggestion is, therefore, that there were two cities of Ur, and that the “Ur of the Chaldees” may have been closer to the region where Jacob and Laban lived3.
At any rate, the location of Jacob's travel and subsequent place of abode at his Uncle Laban's residence is of possible importance in light of this paper's theory of Jacob's practices of selective breeding of animals and the proposed nature of the stock that were being raised, for it happens that this area has yielded some interesting results recently regarding the earliest known domestication of one animal in particular. The reason will be explained further.
Jacob, Selective Breeder of Stock
It is very clear from the reading of Genesis 30 – 31 that Jacob's key occupation within the family of his father-in-law was as keeper of animal herds, or animal husbander. Animals were, of course, an absolutely essential part of God's creation and man's life on Earth; according to Genesis 1:24-27, animals were created on the sixth day, the same day as man, and on that day, God gave man dominion over them. Thus, man's history has been intertwined with that of animals from the original creation.
From the beginning, animals were used by mankind for an incredibly wide-range of uses including food, clothing, protection, offerings, and for certain species—transport4. In some cases, the same animals were used for a variety of purposes: an oxen used to plow might also provide milk and hides; a goat used for meat might also provide milk and even a vessel for water (its skin); a sheep's wool might be used for clothing and its meat for food. With respect to horses and equids in general, they were often used for the unique task of transporting—most often of people through riding or in pulling chariots; sometimes they also were pack animals.
In general, how were animals of transport portrayed in the Bible? As early as Genesis 24:61, reference is made to a woman riding a camel—in this case, Rebekah, mother of Jacob, rode a camel following Abraham's servant back to his home to marry Isaac. In Leviticus 15:9, reference is made to a saddle: “And what saddle soever he rideth upon that hath the issue shall be unclean.i” In I Samuel 25:20-23, reference is made to the riding of a donkey, once again by a woman who was, in this case, Nabal's wife, Abigail, travelling to meet David. The common Hebrew root for these references to mounting or riding an animal is (qal Mheb.)5
The Basic Understanding of the Passages
At first reading, the passages of Genesis 30: 20 – 31:15 are often read to explain in cursory fashion only that Jacob and Laban came to an agreement regarding how Jacob would receive payment for his work for Laban as “herd manager”--obviously a necessity, for Jacob had two wives and a number of children who needed care and simple basics of living. In explaining this somewhat complicated agreement, it seems that the main intent for the reader (or hearer, as it would have been a spoken narrative before having been written down, no doubt) of these passages was to see that Jacob and Laban had an arrangement for Jacob to receive “material wages” for his work. Thus, the reader can, on first reading, glean these basic ideas from the passages:
Step 1: Per the agreement, Jacob went through the herds removing the “colored” animals, which he tells Laban he will keep for his wages for managing Laban's herds—a step to which Laban agreed. Common sense might suggest that the “better” animals or those of “higher value” were the ones that would be maintained by the original owner, Laban. Jacob, in effect, has removed the “lesser” animals from the herd, the ones which he will keep. It is not clear, though, whether Laban had ever selected out animals by color before or not, so this might be a new idea—to select and separate herds based on color markings. If so, at least within this herd, it has been established that the colored animals are of lesser value than the solid animals.
Step 2: Jacob put three days distance between the two herds—Laban's “cleaned” herd and Jacob's “lesser” herd. Common sense, again, comes into play, for if the two herds are not close, they cannot interbreed. Through time, then, Jacob's herd can breed and increase, while Laban's also increases at a distance—implying that animals would not be taken from the original herd by Jacob. By separating the colors, Jacob is creating two distinct herds, for which the difference could be readily seen, even from a distance. One herd would be chiefly solid-colored, as it had been culled of colored animals, while the other herd would be chiefly multi-colored.
Step 3: Jacob cut and peeled posts from trees and placed them in front of the water trough where the animals gathered. The herds were then gathered at watering time and bred (or were mated) before these posts. There were resulting offspring from the matings which gave Jacob the better, more healthy animals for his own herd. His herd, then, increased in better animals than Laban's herd did.
Step 4: When it seemed that it had come time to leave, an angel came to Jacob in a dream and told him that he should leave, encouraging him to pack his families and goods and move away from Laban's home. This, Jacob did.
The basic reading of these passages leaves most readers confused; they often pass on to the next part of Scripture, believing that these unnecessary details actually do not matter, especially as they seem inexplicable, unless reading into the text some extraordinary intervention. Almost like magic, it seems that the Jacob's herd has been made into a thriving, first-rate herd, leaving Laban wondering what happened.
The Issue of Superstition in the Passages
Upon first reading, it is a fairly common interpretation of these passages to read the details as recorded as a superstitious act involving the white rods and curious divine intervention to produce the best animals for Jacob's herd; it seems like the rods are magical in nature. This is entirely understandable as the wording of the passage lends itself to this reading. In fact, Jerry Falwell, in the Liberty Annotated Study Bible, states that “Jacob evidently relied on superstition that the offspring would be influenced by the fears and expectation of the mother during pregnancy (vv. 37, 38). Tests have shown that spotting gives way to solid color in the breeding of goats.”6
It is interesting to note that the animals mentioned in Falwell's explanation are simply “goats.” In fact, a notation shows that he classes the “cattle” mentioned in the passages under the term “livestock.” Actually, this shows how the clear distinction between goats, sheep, cattle and even horses can become easily fuzzy when re-telling narratives.
Falwell, thus, suggests that Scripture is stating a form of superstition was involved in the placement of rods and conception yielding the preferred animals for Jacob. Falwell, however, goes on to comment that: “Modern genetic studies on dominance and latency have supported Jacob's method, which at one time seemed to link the Bible with groundless supposition. Jacob's success was also attributed to selective breeding (vv. 40-42) in addition to divine help (31:10-12).” Thus Falwell believe there were more common sense events at work.
_________________________________________________________________________
Interestingly, as Falwell explained that goat colors will naturally move from multi-colored to solid when generations are considered in natural selection and breeding, thus it is just the opposite with the zebra species. Zebras, obviously, tend to the color pattern with which all are familiar—concentric circles of black and white or “ringstraked.” The uncommon or recessive colors of zebras would be the more solid-colored animals—those with fewer to no white stripes. If breeding domesticated horses, these solid colors would be the preferred colors and the more highly-prized, less common colors. This could explain why Jacob would take the multi-colored animals, for they were less rare, thus being worth less money—a suitable deal with Laban.
A Jewish Explanation
Nahum Sarna, in the JPS Torah Commentary on Genesis, has a somewhat differing explanation for the confusing and unusual activities described in Genesis 30:25 – 31:13. Sarna believes that “most sheep are white and goats dark brown or black in the Near East”; he adds that “a minority of sheep may have dark patches, and goats white markings.” These rarer animals, he says, are the ones Jacob demanded as wages for his work tending Laban's flocks. Over the next six years (stated in Genesis 31:41), Jacob succeeds in “outwitting Laban,” he says. His explanation combines two different possible interpretations of events in the narrative.7
Sarna's first interpretation mainly centers around the mating of the animals and the actions Jacob takes with them regarding the rods which he peeled and placed before the troughs. He states that in this account, Jacob “first segregates the feebler animals. Then he subjects the sturdier ones to visual impressions at mating time, in this way influencing the character of the progeny.”8 This explanation lends itself to the general interpretation of superstition or folklore with respect to, especially, the rods and how they affect the mating. In addition to the superstitious quality of this interpretation, Sarna adds that it also “fallaciously assumes the inheritability of acquired characteristics.”
Both this part of the explanation, in so many words, and the second explanation given by Sarna relate to the similar commentary by Jerry Falwell. The second explanation he gives is that “controlled propagation” is used; he states that “the desired results could be achieved by the successive interbreeding of the monochrome heterozygotes, or the single-colored animals that carried recessive genes for spottedness.” Adding to this explanation, he states that the resulting animals are “detectable by the characteristic known as heterosis, or hybrid vigor.” Sarna suggests that “inbreeding” results in hybrid vigor; this is not always true though it may be sometimes.
There are two points to be made here. First, if Jacob removed only the colored animals from Laban's flock for his own, how can he then be breeding “single-colored animals” as mentioned by Sarna—for would he have any single-colored animals of his own to breed? A second question arises regarding why Jacob says that Laban can check to see whether there are any solid-colored animals. This point of showing honesty can be explained by a clever ruse suggested in this paper, for the suggestion of this author is that there were, in fact, solid-colored animals within the pen that would seem from a distance to be marked with color.
David Cotter is another scholar who has written on these passages of Jacob's narrative. In a volume on Genesis from Studies in Hebrew Narrative and Poetry9, Cotter states that the interpretation of how Jacob gains ground by watching over Laban's flocks is very confusing. “What happens next <following the removal of the multi-colored animals by Jacob> confuses nearly all commentators.” It is at this point that the narrative describes Jacob peeling rods of wood in front of which the animals breed. As Cotter states it: “It seems that they produce offspring alike in appearance to the rods in front of which they bred. This would be a sort of folklorelike explanation, a kind of superstition.” Here is one scholar's interpretation that the offspring show, in fact, white striping or—perhaps--the “ringstraked” coloring of concentric circles mentioned originally in the King James Version of Scripture.
Old Testament scholar Robert Alter also summarizes his view of an interesting conception of Jacob's breeding program presented by Yehuda Feliks, a renowned Jewish scholar. Among the founders of the Land of Israel Studies of Bar Ilan University in Israel, Professor Feliks' specialty was in botany, along with study of the Talmud. He wrote numerous books and articles on man and nature in the Bible, animals of the Bible, and other works, explaining Scripture using his viewpoint as a learned science professor. Deceased in 2005, Feliks gained wide recognition for much creative interpretation of Scripture, including his approach on selective breeding shown in the story of Jacob and Laban's herd. His explanation includes the idea that Jacob used deception or “a ruse” to complete the selective breeding he did using Laban's herds.10
Feliks's alternative explanation sees the narrative as both the explanation of a “ruse” by Jacob to distract onlookers as well as a form of selective breeding being used to produce the better stock which Jacob desired.11 Alter says that “using a Mendelian table, Felix argues that the recessive traits would have shown up in 25 percent of the animals born in the first breeding season, 12.5 percent in the second season, 6.25 percent in the third season. Jacob is, moreover, careful to encourage the breeding of only the more vigorous animals, which, according to Feliks, would be more likely to be heterozygotes, bearing the recessive genes”12.
Other scholars have agreed in various fashion with Feliks' interpretation. They believe, basically, that the Mendelian explanation is sufficient in general to make these Genesis passages understandable in modern-day terms. Some of these include A. Langenauer13, J. Litwins14, and J. D. Pearson15. This “Mendelian explanation” is also mentioned, as said, by Dr. Jerry Falwell.
Dr. Joshua Backon, a medical doctor interested in this question, attempts another approach to explaining the story of Jacob's successful breeding program that is not dependent on the divine16. He begins by noting that many traditional rabbi believe the events were, in effect, a miracle provided by God. Some of the Jewish experts include Rabbenu Bachya, Haklau u'Kabbalah and The Chatham Sopr. Dr. Backon focuses on the possible importance of the “sticks” played in the story of Jacob's breeding program. He believes that through a process of placing these particular branches in the watering troughs of the herd, the mothers ingested chemicals that would alter the color of the flocks. The amino acids from the branches of poplar, almond and plane trees or bushes, he believes, may have caused the color changes in the offspring; this process is called epigenetics of fur color.
There is one point of contention with the focus on the Mendelian approach to explain the selective breeding of the animals in the story of Jacob. First, here is a question to be answered: why would a more vigorous animal necessarily carry a recessive gene? There certainly are genetic connections between vigor, strength and general health, as well as environmental connections and circumstance, or chance, regarding food supply, care and nutrition by a present or absent mother, and much more; however, in the particular circumstance of which Jacob is speaking, he focuses first of all on color within the herd, for this was the basis of his initial selection.
As Dr. Backon suggests, it does seem that the Mendelian explanation may be “weak,” for as he states, this explanation alone depends on Jacob choosing spotted sheep that were homozygous (two-different alleles on one locus) rather than heterozygous—a feat in this author's opinion that may have been nearly impossible without divine intervention. It would certainly have taken many, many years and generations using this approach.
Some Modern Finds on Horse Breeding
Within the past year, a very important discovery was made with relation to the possible “cradle of horse breeding”--that is, the earliest-known region in which horses were actually selectively bred and domestically used by people in various activities and to suit human needs.
Earlier in Scripture, of course, the narrative of Genesis speaks of chariots; for example, Genesis 50:9 describes a column or group of chariots, as war chariots. (The Hebrew is '.) With the story of Moses and the flight of the Hebrews from Egypt come references to chariots in Exodus 14:9, 17, 18, 23, 26, 28 and Exodus 15:19. Deuteronomy 11:4 and 20:1 speak of chariots, also, as does Joshua 11:4. In fact, many references to chariots are found throughout I and II Kings, Jeremiah, Judges, II Samuel and even Ezekiel. The Hebrew term for iron war chariots is as used in I Kings 9:19 and 10:26. Sometimes, large numbers of war chariots are mentioned as in Joshua 17:16, Judges 1:19 and 4:3-13 where nine hundred iron war chariots are mentioned. As late in scripture as Habbakuk, reference is made to driving along with your horses and chariots (NSRV).
Referring to those who ride, drive or work professionally with horses, the term (rakkab) is used, such as in Deuteronomy 33:26. In Syrian, the term for professional horseman is rakkaba (CPArmenian rkb and Arabic rakkab).
In general, biblical references to riding animals began at a very early point in the narrative, first with reference to riding camels and later donkeys. By the time reference is made to the use of chariots, it is certain that horses are the animal of usage and that they have been developed and domesticated to the point where they are considered part of the human fabric and culture—at least in war.
Development of Charioteering and the Breeding of Horses
There is fairly clear evidence of the development of the use of chariots in particular within the region of Israel as written and archeological records indicate this. These records become numerous especially in relation to the rise of the powerful nation of the Hittites, a warrior-like group know to overcome and defeat many nation-states in the mid-2nd millennium.
Artwork as well as written records prove that the Hittite armies used chariots extensively in their operations. Following the rise of the Iron Age, the iron chariot became a great advantage to this nation in their maneuvering for power through conquest. It is likely that the reason that the Hittites in fact were able to overcome their opponents was largely because of these chariots, pulled by trained horses.
Archeological discoveries have also shown that the horse was developed into the modern equine over a long period thought to date back into the dinosaur era. Eohippus, mesohippus and other intermediary horse ancestors have been presented by evolutionary experts over the years as the ancestors of modern horses. The exact location of more recent movement of the horse into domestication is fuzzy; however, recent discoveries in the area not far from where Jacob, Laban and their families lived and worked have produced the oldest known evidence of man's domesti-cation of the horse.17 Paddocks have been unearthed which contain fodder and manure pits dating back to approximately the supposed time of Jacob as those dates are believed to be. In fact, in the region of these finds (somewhat north of the region of Haran in the area of south Russia, Ukraine and west Kazahkstan), horses are used currently much as cattle for livestock purposes, being milked as well as eaten for food. This could well be the way earliest horses were used, with the dividing line between cattle, goats and sheep slim regarding their uses by man. There are questions regarding this “fuzzy line” between species in Scripture.18
Regarding these finds, researchers from the University of Exeter have noted: “Horses appear to have been domesticated in preference to adopting a herding economy based upon domestic cattle, sheep and goats. Horses have the advantage of being adapted to severe winters and they are able to graze year round, even through snow. Cattle, sheep and goats need to be to be provided with winter fodder, and were a later addition to the prehistoric economies of the region.”19
It is interesting that in Scripture, limited references are made to horses, overall. In Genesis, as mentioned before, early reference was made to the use of a camel and donkey for riding. Not until the latter part of the narrative of Genesis does the tale speak of chariots which would have been pulled by horses and there is also the Bible's first reference to a horse. Could this be because they were being domesticated from wild stock—perhaps zebras, in some cases? If they were too wild to control, they may still have been used early on for food.
What Did the Horse of Jacob's Time Look Like?
It is clear that domesticated horses were owned and used by the peoples of the Bronze Age; archeological finds of cemeteries and other areas have revealed many findings to support this.
According to the Oxford Bible Atlas, during much of the Bible era, donkeys and mules were beasts of burden and also used for riding, sometimes—as in the case of King Solomon, who rode on a mule to his anointing. Of domesticated animals, it states, horses were “predominantly used to military purposes, for riding or drawing chariots”20.
In 1972, an Italian expedition was excavating in Syria and discovered a large group of tablets which dated from the third millennium. This archive showed tablets written in cuneiform totalling over 1,200 tablets plus additional fragments from a large palace. The site was Tell Mardikh, the site of ancient Ebla, a city which was known from Syrian, Anatolian and Mesopotamian records. The majority of the tablets dealt with administrative matters of the kings, but within these tablets was one letter which makes an interesting reference. Called the “Hamazi Letter,” it is written in Eblaite and was addressed by Ibubu, a high official of the court, to an envoy of the ruler of Hamazi (location not yet known). Within the text of the letter, Ibubu states that he has given the envoy gifts of wagon ropes and two wagons; in return, he asks that the king of Hamazi deliver to him “the finest quality equids.”21 It is notable here that the animals are not termed “donkeys,” or “asses,” or even, at this point, “horses.” There are other texts found with these same tablets which DO speak to donkeys or asses; for example, one tablet from the 3rd Dynasty of UR says “Tell Dadaga to give Lugal-Kugani a mature she-ass and stud-ass from the deliveries to the temple (of the god) Shera, and to take his receipt”22, while another tablet discusses how “Namtare Shuni-Dingir, the scribe, has taken away a donkey belonging to Ungal...”23. Therefore, use of the term “equid” from these texts is striking for it is clearly a different term from those used for donkeys or asses.
In fact, in Civilizations of the Ancient and Near East (Vol. 1 and II), the general term “equids” is used to describe donkeys (Equus Asinus), horses (Equus caballus) and mules24. This text relates that “archeological, textual and zoological record for equids in the ancient Near East is exceptionally complex” and that fragmentary osteological remains cannot be more precisely identified than to term them “equids.” It is known that the earliest record of a wild ass (Equus africanus) was from the late-fourth-millennium at Uruk and was crossbred with an “onager” (never domesticated equid) in Mesopotamia. A breeding center for donkeys has been found in southern Israel; a horse bone from the Early Bronze Age site in Arad (southern Canaan) was found. Even more telling to the story of Jacob is a figurine of a domestic horse recovered in northern Syria at Tell es-Sweyhat dating to 2300 B.C.E.25
From a Ugarak cemetery (saka rulers) of the late Bronze Age were extracted numerous horse bits—many very sophisticated and, in fact, nearly identical to modern day bits used by horsemen.26 In addition, one ax head from the Bronze Age found in Anoukhva (north Caucasus) clearly shows striped zebras which are carved into the hard stone.27 This ax handle dates to the early first millennium B.C.E.; similar finds are said to have been made in Transcaucasia, particularly in western Georgia (ancient Colchis)--again, not at a great distance from the location of Laban and Jacob.
Were these horses like modern day horses? This is highly unlikely, because centuries of highly selective breeding has been enacted by men to create today's wide range of color- and trait-specific numerous and clearly delineated breeds of horses as well as ponies. Within only America, for example, there are several distinct, selectively bred “American” horse breeds with highly-detailed registration systems. Breeding fees for stallions can range to tens of thousands of dollars with colts bringing millions as investments—before they have been raced or shown. The process of selectively breeding horses has a very extensive history in simply the last few centuries; how much more complex this history must be in looking back over millennia.
A Bronze Age chalice on display from the area of Susa in modern-day Iran lends some question to the appearance of ancient horses.28 The chalice features carefully-crafted, three-dimensional art of cows, whose heads clearly show features recognizable to modern viewers. In fact, the chalice is captioned in a book as “artwork of cows.” This is true when viewing the top row of animal heads and forefronts facing outward; clearly distinguishable, however, is the differing appearance of the second row of animal heads and forefronts on the lower row of artwork. In fact, to a horseman it would seem apparent that these are, in fact, horses and not cows. They are quite interesting because they do NOT appear to look exactly like modern-day horses; this is obviously why the captioning is incorrect. The bovine representations show stylization but are basically structurally like modern-day cows, while the equine representations show similar stylization but add several features: the length of the equine face is short by today's standards, and the nose is “roman”--a term currently used to describe a horse whose nose-bridge is convex rather than straight or concave (as with Arabians). It is clear that the creatures are neither cows nor donkeys, for donkeys have ears of some length; these creatures do not.
In fact, to those knowledgeable of general horse characteristics, these “horses” or “equines” more closely resemble zebras than modern-day horses, for the zebra also has a larger and wider head and jaw in relation to its body than most horses, as well as a wider, thicker and shorter neck. These features are not the same as those of donkeys. Is there any possibility that Jacob may have been the manager of an operation in which domestic horses were being bred from wild zebras? There might be.
