​

Perhaps, indeed, Jacob used an additional “ruse”: having the healthier stock of Laban's breed behind the stockade, undetected, with Jacob's legally-gleaned herd, producing babies of healthier constitution, in addition to babies of the more-highly desired, solid color. By inference, Laban, as the owner of the original herd, would have kept the healthier, stronger animals, so Jacob could have had the best males (the studs), breed with his own, less desirable females, within the stockade he built at the watering trough. If this is true, then Jacob was, in effect, avenging the grave wrong done to him by Laban originally, while also finding ways to feed Laban's own daughters and grandchildren more effectively.

Remember that Jacob had learned earlier in life the advantages of “living by your wits,” as he was shown by his mother, Rebekah, how to successfully deceive his father into giving him the birthright of his brother Esau. Having been truly deceived by his mother's brother through the earlier subterfuge Laban played upon him in his seven years' labor for Leah, not Rachel, Jacob may have well been looking for means to regain the own time he had lost, for he had to not only worked an extra seven years to obtain Rachel but he also ended up needing to support two separate families—no small task. Jacob's deception may have had roots in the need to care for a large family of wives and children. Perhaps God saw a reason to aid the one whom He loved and protected as He watched Jacob first, being unfairly used by Laban, and later, being forced to provide for a very large family involving two wives, their natural children, and additional children, also. All of this sprang directly from Laban, Jacob's father-in-law and uncle, for Jacob might have married into a totally different situation which may have been much less demanding than this.

An Unusual Interpretation: Might The Animals Have Even Been Zebras?

The idea that Jacob may have been raising zebras, or breeding solid-colored horses from zebras, could shed further light on a possible interpretation of this intricate narrative. Is it possible that the reason the WHITE streaks are mentioned in conjunction with the term “ringstraked” is because there may have been zebras behind the poles of Jacob's corral? The term “ringstraked” is an Old English term, now entirely antiquated and out of use in modern society. The definition of the term by Merriam Webster's Dictionary is “concentric circles.” This color scheme is suggestive of bands of color which alternate—much like a bull's eye or a prison uniform or the common depictions of the “Coat of Many Colors” of Joseph. It is an unusual pattern in nature, and in fact, zebras are one of the few animals which cleraly display concentric circles on their bodies. There are actually differing patterns and families of zebras which have differing and unique color patterns—some have wide bands of alternating colors while some have narrow bands, for example. They all would classify as a “ringstraked” pattern.

To show how unusual the term “ringstraked” is in Scripture (which contains somewhere between 774,764 and 789,629 words in common versions¹), Strong's Concordance shows that the term “ringstraked” is used exclusively in the Bible in these passages of Genesis: Genesis 30:35, 39, 40 and Genesis 31:8, 9, 10 and 12. In no other passage of the entire Bible is the term “ringstraked” used. In fact, Strong's also states that in four of these instances (v. 30:39, 31: 8, 10 and 12), the term “ringstraked” is used in conjunction with the term “cattle.”² It has been previously shown that the species of animals recorded in these passages by King James scholars was not clear, and it is known that cattle are not known to have concentric circles, short of one unique Dutch breed only selectively bred over the past 500 years³. It would not be unreasonable to conclude that the “ringstraked” animals were zebras.

It should be noted here that some readers of the Bible may not even have seen the term “ringstraked” in their study of Jacob's narratives. This may, in fact, be a surprising term to them entirely. It is true that most modern scriptural translations chose to not keep the term “ringstraked” in these passages. The New King James Version, for example, published by Thomas Nelson, has omitted the term from its translation of scripture⁴. In fact, of several major translations, it is found that these words are used:

King James Version – “ringstraked” or “ring-streaked”

 

New International Version – “streaked”

 

New American Standard Version – “striped”

 

Amplified Bible – “streaked”

 

This comparison is found in The Comparative Study Bible.⁵

 

To explain the scriptural confusion of these passages with respect to zebras, one could conclude that if the corral fences were placed vertically into the ground (a very common method) and linked together with binding, this would produce a series of bars when viewed from outside the pen. If, as Scripture states, the poles were “pilled” or peeled to expose the underlying white surfaces, then it is clear that the animals inside which were solid dark color (for reference, black) could appear when looking from the outside of the pen to have vertical white stripes suggestive of zebras. In fact, those animals inside the fence may well have been solid black—actually, the number one choice in color of people who own domesticated horses and therefore, the particular goal for many breeders of horses throughout history. For domestic horses, the preferred color to raise then as well as now has always been solid black, making those horses worth more than even zebras, especially in the earliest phases of breedings of horses, most likely.

      There are many questions that might be raised from this unusual way of looking at the Scripture involving Jacob, Laban and the breeding program of the flocks. The one suggested is certain to raise many additional questions and concerns. How can this unusual explanation be possible given the wording of the passages and general translations? There is a possible answer.

                                Confusion in Translation of Genesis 30:35

If looking to another form of Bible, some light may, in fact, be shed on how this verse and section of Scripture may have been wrongly understood by numerous, undoubtedly very intelligent scholars who translated it. Most may not know that a second, royal biblical translation was ordered of the Bible. Completed and published in 1956, this version is entitled The Holy Bible, a translation from the Latin Vulgate in light of the Hebrew and Greek originals. It was published in London under editors Burns and Oates, publishers of the Holy See. The reading from this translation of these verses is entirely different, and it can be assumed that the difference again stems from confusion of what exactly IS being explained as the actions of Jacob. Translations seem to reflect numerous variations of explanations by scholars as to what they THINK the words mean; therefore, they are subject, with good intentions, to a wide range of misinterpretations.

In the “modern” King James Version, Genesis 30: 31-35 reads:

Go round all thy flocks, now, and remove from them every sheep that is speckled, or has a blotched fleece. And the hire thou art to pay me shall be all the lambs that are born, even so, grey or spotted or speckled; and so with the kids. So, later, when our agreement is fulfilled, my honesty shall be on its trial; if I keep for myself any beast except those which are speckled or spotted or grey, whether it be lamb or kid, call me a thief. Thy request, said Laban, is granted; and, that same day, he set aside she-goats and ewes, he-goats and rams, that were speckled and spotted; all those, too, that were of one colour, white (among the goats) or black (among the sheep); <footnote inserted here>

The footnote to this verse 35 reads: “White (among the goats) or black (among the sheep); the Latin text here has simply 'white or black', but if all the white and black, as well as the particoloured, were entrusted to Laban's sons, there would have been no herd left for Jacob at all. The Hebrew text, instead of 'white or black,' has 'the black among the sheep.'⁶ It can be seen, then, that these scholars have elaborated in their own ways upon this section. Perhaps, then, the words might have been black AND white...

Similarly, regarding the fact that Jacob's herd was considered to be “stronger,” the “modern” King James version of London footnotes this, also, by saying: “The words 'weaklings' and 'strong' <used in their translation> are not expressed in the Latin, but the Hebrew text shows that this was the author's meaning. Apparently it was thought that winter lambs were more robust than spring lambs......In the Hebrew text, this whole story is confused, and difficult to unravel. The Latin version differs from it very considerably; and this, too, is obscure in places; the rendering here given is based on the exposition given by St. Jerome himself in his notes on Genesis.”⁷

Is it possible that all these scholars who groped for some explanation, changing words and re-writing verses the best they knew how, were off the mark? Could it not be true that the word “ringstraked” and the London scholars' translation of “black” and “white” (based on the writings of St. Jerome)--if seen together in context of the story of selective breeding—may have, in fact, been referring to zebras, for black and white ringstraked IS the pattern of zebras? This could be an alternative to attempting to explain the complexity of black and white sheep or goats all within one pen—not to mention “cattle”--though to many it may seem difficult to believe as they are used to more traditional explanations.