Can Zebras be Domesticated?

With very little evidence to show how early horses were derived, it is speculation to say what manner in which they were originally begun. It is certainly possible that they were derived from zebras, though few modern American horse owners now choose to own zebras because of their price as well as their difficulty in taming¹. To see a domesticated zebra in America is highly unusual—but, there are, in fact, some around. More recently, there are exhibition shows, especially in California, in which zebras in America are being regularly shown as trained animals, just as horses would be. It is, in fact, something of a trend.

In a conversation with a gentleman visiting America from Ghana recently, a question was asked regarding the wild animals he had observed there as a youth, as well as more recently. He stated that there were lions and giraffes. When the question was raised, “What about zebras?”, he countered with “But you asked about wild animals. Zebras are horses.” When asked if he was aware that people in the area where he lived used zebras like horses, his reply was “Yes, they use zebras as horses.” According to his testimony, it appears that at least in areas of Ghana with which this man is familiar, there are those who use zebras as domestic horses might be used, at least in some ways.²

As mentioned before, it seems to be clear to date that horses were likely originated in or around the area in which Jacob, Laban, and their families lived, raised their children, and worshiped God. There is some evidence that zebras may have even been found as far north as the region of Georgia, north of Haran, based on findings of art mentioned earlier. There is little evidence across the board that explains how horses were domesticated, but it is not speculation to believe that the earliest horses were not the same as those that are known today. Could Jacob have been the first breeder of horses from zebras? It is certainly possible though hard to prove.

                                           Clearing the Confusion

The text of Genesis 30:35 through 31:10 is certainly confusing—even for the most learned scholar. Of course, few biblical scholars in modern times are familiar at all with animal breeding, care or husbandry.³ There is clearly much confusion in this text, for there are all manner of animals mentioned in the King James version. First, goats are listed, then sheep, and finally cattle. In verse 30:40, for example, within one sentence, the narrative reads that “Jacob did separate the lambs, and put the faces of the flocks toward the ringstraked, and all the brown in the flock of Laban; and he put his own flocks by themselves, and put them not unto Laban's cattle.” In this simple sentence, the narrative switches from sheep to cows!

In addition, in more modern renderings of the Bible, the mention of cattle has been removed from the original text, changing the entire reading. No doubt, this was done to help make the reading less confusing to the common reader; however, if important information might be lost in changing wording because it is not yet understood, might this not be a flag for us that other Scriptural changes must be carefully noted by scholars of the Bible and those persons might consider reading as closely to original wordings as possible? Scholars may see the more important issues for most people to be in larger lessons to be derived from texts; this is true, but there are yet crucial historical and even interpretation issues that might yet be gained from Scripture before stripping it too finely of its original wording. Much may be lost if scholars are allowed to remove words that may have particular meanings. Common paraphrased translations of Scripture may well be best suited for general readers who are attempting to obtain an overall understanding and meaning of passages, verses, and narratives. There is a place for this that is important; however, for the vital research of scholars in finely tuning the meaning of Scripture, the more closely-rendered translations—even containing their questionable passages—should be left intact for astute readers and interpreters to perhaps gain a fuller understanding of meanings.

Is it known what is meant by the passages of Genesis that lead up to the angel of God visiting Jacob and urging him to quickly leave the land of his father-in-law—in essence, before, perhaps, he gets in trouble? This urging could be interpreted as a reaction to the jealousy of Laban toward Jacob for his seeming miraculous ability to end up with herds that are larger and stronger than Laban's without using unethical means. It also could be interpreted as an understanding by the angel that Jacob was using, in fact, some questionable actions in the breeding program which might land him in great trouble if found out. It is hard to know.

It seems clear, and some scholars have brought support to this concept, that Jacob may have been using selective breeding to increase his flock or herd. Scripture seems clearly to be stating that the corral and the water troughs or creek were the location of the events that led to the increase in Jacob's herds beyond those of Jacob. If read in a “straightforward manner,” one could conclude that God was using magic related to the corral poles to help Jacob produce the desired herd. If read with a more “common sense reading,” one might conclude that something different was happening within the corral pens, and that the important detail of the peeled white poles is the reason for the herd increase. If logic, then, is applied, a conclusion might be reached that Jacob was breeding certain selected animals behind the corral he built. As suggested, this could well be the case of the pen being a cover for Jacob's activities. The ruse as explained using the white corral poles to give the appearance of all non-solid animals within the pen would only have to last for a very brief time—strictly during the breeding which would take place selectively when the animals were easy to catch and pen up as they came to get water. This plan actually seems fairly perfect.

Selective breeding most likely was done, probably even involving the breeding of homozygous animals (commonly done today with the breeding of tobiano horses, for example); this approach, however, takes some time, and it is doubtful that Jacob would have boasted of his ability to complete this BEFORE is was accomplished—especially using honest means.

         Were the animals zebras that were being selectively bred to be solid-colored, showing the seeds of the domestication of horses from zebras? That is a difficult question but not without possibility given the use of the term “ringstraked” meaning concentric circles, along with the complex explanation of the peeling of the posts to form a corral which would make the animals inside appear, especially from a distance, to most likely look striped. This explanation will most like raise eyebrows of many biblical scholars; however, it seems to cover the major aspects of the narrative in a logical fashion. Whether zebras are considered to be the animals in question, it still seems very likely that the white corral posts were used to create the appearance of colored animals being inside, when, in fact, not all the animals inside the pen were colored, at least at certain particular times.​

What is Lost in the Re-Telling the Tale?

Along with the question of what took place within the activities of Jacob prior to his leaving the land of Laban, the questions left hanging from this section of Scripture would seem to make scholars of the Bible realize that modern translations of Scripture may actually undo some of the prime lessons of the Bible, if taken lightly. Though more modern translations have certain merits—especially in helping the layman or woman have a better overall understanding of biblical stories and meanings, for many may never entirely cover the Scripture if not made easier to read, yet it seems that scholars of the Bible should not lose sight of the fact that translators of Scripture must each make their own decisions regarding choices of words as well as exclusion of words (or inclusion of new words). This can be tricky, and in some cases, if closer-to-original translations are sent to the trash, it may cause mistakes in understanding or interpretation. How large could these mistakes be? That is a difficult question to answer well.

Dr. David Fuller in his book Which Bible? has compiled opinions from experts regarding which version of the Bible should be considered the best one. His conclusions are interesting, as various authors find problems in so many translations that proceeded in producing the Bible as it is now known. One scholar commenting in the book, Dr. Benjamin C. Wilkinson, explains at length the benefits of maintaining the status of the King James Version. He states that “It is not clear that later translations were better than the King James.” For example, he says that several well-known scholars refused the Vatican and Sinaitic Manuscripts used to begin revising it. He says of these: “Especially when shocking corruptions of these documents betray a 'systematic depravation'.” Another scholar, Dr. Dean Burgon, states that “the impurity of the texts.....of Codices B and Aleph is not a matter of opinion....but a matter of fact.” Another scholar, Dr. Scrivener, is also quoted as supporting this statement, saying that handwriting shows ten different scribes made revisions to these royal and highly expensive documents—not likely, he believes, to have been allowed by Emperor Constantine.⁴ As Dr. Wilkinson wraps up his discussion, he states: “Let the many versions be used as reference books, or books for study, but let us have a uniform standard versions, namely, the venerated King James Version.⁵

The interpretation of these passages suggested in this paper in some ways reflect a “modern” way of approaching the Scripture, for this author has taken leeway in assuming an “overview” look at the passages which might give a more clear picture of what is taking place in a logical manner. Questions have been raised regarding the use of the terms “cattle,” “sheep,” and “goats,” and a suggestion has been made that the livestock may have been equine—a big jump in assumption. Others such as Jerry Falwell have also made a similar conclusion in using the term “livestock” to cover whatever type of animals were involved. On the other hand, it is also true, however, that by clinging to the word “ringstraked” found in the King James version, this author has kept to an early biblical interpretation in order to form a possible explanation regarding zebras. Were the King James scholars confused about what was being raised? Were they confused about their coloring? It seems that the answer to these questions may be “yes” in both cases. They may not have been clear whether the animals were speckled, spotted, or had concentric circles like zebras. They may have not been clear if they were sheep, goats, cattle or something else like horses. The confusion has carried over into today.

           It should be understood that myths and narratives begun in the time before writing occurred are prone to errors as they were handed down orally (or even in dance); there are details that may not have been made clear or were confused within the oral account as they were passed down. In the case of this portion of the story of Jacob, this is certainly possible, for to explain a scheme of deceptive breeding practices could be difficult—especially BEFORE the time of the written word. It may also have been difficult to cast any aspersions on the patriarch, Jacob. Scholar Frederick Greenspahn, in The Encyclopedia of Religion (Volume 7), states that many scholars have been troubled by the devious deeds of Jacob as depicted in the Bible. He states that “Rabbinic tradition...sought to minimize these negative traits, which seem so evident in the Bible. It must be recognized that from the biblical point of view, these actions, whatever their moral character, serve primarily to ensure the fulfillment of God's design indicated even prior to Jacob's birth”⁶ In the world in which God helped Jacob, as He helped Moses, Abraham, Noah and others before Him, it may be that He chose to send an angel to show Jacob how to right a wrong done to him while also finding an important means of taking care of the very large family he had fathered. At least, it seems that God chose not to intervene but to help by sending a warning to Jacob.

As one scholar explains in the Westminster Study Edition of the Holy Bible: “The all important thing is to recognize that <these stories> bear witness to the essential relations that exist between God and the world which He had made. They shed a marvelous light upon the real nature of man and upon the way in which God deals with him in judgment and mercy”⁷ Without God protecting and supporting Jacob and the large family who grew to become the twelve tribes of Israel, no doubt he may well have failed.

Even William Shakespeare found Jacob to be a fascinating character, for in his play, The Merchant of Venice (Act I, Scene iii), he writes about Jacob's adventure with Laban.⁸ “This was a venture, sir, that Jacob serv'd for; A thing not in his power to bring to pass, But sway'd and fashion'd by the hand of heaven.” Shakespeare believed that God was clearly in Jacob's life—for Shakespeare, also, was a wise man.

Bibliography

Alter, Robert. “Genesis.” The World of the Bible Encyclopedia. Tel Aviv: Revivim, 1982.

“Archaeologists Find Earliest Known Domestic Horses: Harnessed and Milked.” Science Daily. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090305141627.htm (accessed 22 May 2013).

 

​

Backon, Joshua. “Jacob and the Spotted Sheep: The Role of Prenatal Nutrition on Epigenetics of Fur Color,” Jewish Quarterly 36,

           no. 4 (2008), 263-265.

 

 

Cotter, David W. Genesis, Vol. 1. Studies in Hebrew Narrative and Poetry. Collegeville, MN: The Order of Saint Benedict, 2003.

​

Curtis, Adrian, ed. Oxford Bible Atlas, 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

 

 

The Encyclopedia of Religion. Mircea Eliade, Editor in Chief. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1986.

 

 

Falwell, Jerry, Editor. Liberty Annotated Study Bible. Lynchburg, VA: Old Time Gospel Hour, 1998.

Fuller, David, Editor. Which Bible? Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1970.

​

Goodrick, Edward. W., and Kohlenberger, John. R. The Strongest NIV Exhaustive Concordance. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004.

 

Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version. New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1952.

 

The Holy Bible, Westminster Study Edition. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1948.

 

Isbouts, Jean-Pierre. The Biblical World: An Illustrated Atlas. Washington, DC: National Geographic, 2007.

“Israel National News.” Arutz Sheva 7. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/94591#.UZztZEh3-ao (accessed 21 May 2013).

 

Langenauer, A. “Genetic Investigation of a Biblical Myth.” Journal of Heredity 60, no. 4 (July 1969), 165-169.

 

Litvinsky, B. A. “Archaeology and Artifacts in Iron Age Central Asia.” Civilizations of the Ancient Near East,

         Vol. 1 & II. Jack M. Sasson, Editor in Chief. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995.

 

Litwins, J. “Genetics in the Bible.” New York State Journal of Medicine 72, no. 8 (April 15, 1972), 972.

 

Michalowski, Piotr. Letters from Early Mesopotamia. Erica Reiner, ed. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1993.

 

“Mystery of the Domestication of the Horse Solved: Competing Theories Reconciled.” Science Daily. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120507154107.htm (accessed 20 May 2013).

 

Old Testament, Hebrew & English. London: The British & Foreign Bible Society, 1961.

 

Pearson, J. D. “A Mendelian Interpretation of Jacob's Sheep.” Science and Christian Belief 13, no. 1 (2001), 51-58.

 

Sarna, Nahum M., General Editor. The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, Vol. 1. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989.

 

Shakespeare, William. “The Merchant of Venice.” The Complete Works of Shakespeare, Revised Edition. Hardin Craig, editor. Glenview, Ill:

​

           Scott, Foresman and Company, 1973.

 

Strong, James. Strong's Concordance of the Bible Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1980.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------