Was Stephen Wrong? Acts 7:15-16

[Jaymin Allen]

Stephen says in Acts 7:15-16: "And Jacob went down into Egypt, and he died, he and our fathers, and they were carried back to Shechem and laid in the tomb that Abraham had bought for a sum of silver from the sons of Hamor in Shechem."

But Jacob was not buried in Shechem, according to the OT account.

Genesis 50:12-13
"Thus his sons did for him as he had commanded them, for his sons carried him to the land of Canaan and buried him in the cave of the field at Machpelah, to the east of Mamre, which Abraham bought with the field from Ephron the Hittite to possess as a burying place."

This cave was in Hebron, not Shechem:

Genesis 23:16, 19-
"Abraham listened to Ephron, and Abraham weighed out for Ephron the silver that he had named in the hearing of the Hittites, four hundred shekels of silver, according to the weights current among the merchants...After this, Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah east of Mamre (that is, Hebron) in the land of Canaan."

Jacob, however, did buy a field in Shechem from the sons of Hamor, but he was not buried there-
Genesis 33:19-
"And from the sons of Hamor, Shechem's father, he [Jacob] bought for a hundred pieces of money the piece of land on which he had pitched his tent."

What do we say about this? Obviously our views of inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy come into play (and under attack) because of this and other problems like it...

 

[turmeric]

It does seem that there were two burials; one of Jacob, involving quite a procession into Canaan, eliciting the comment "This is some great mourning of the Egyptians."(sic), the other occuring after Israel returned to the Promised Land.

 

[Jaymin Allen]

Matthew Henry:

Fifthly, Jacob and his sons died in Egypt (Act_7:15), but were carried over to be buried in Canaan, Act_7:16. A very considerable difficulty occurs here: it is said, They were carried over into Sychem, whereas Jacob was buried not in Sychem, but near Hebron, in the cave of Machpelah, where Abraham and Isaac were buried, Gen_50:13. Joseph's bones indeed were buried in Sychem (Jos_24:32), and it seems by this (though it is not mentioned in the story) that the bones of all the other patriarchs were carried with his, each of them giving the same commandment concerning them that he had done; and of them this must be understood, not of Jacob himself. But then the sepulchre in Sychem was bought by Jacob (Gen_33:19), and by this it is described, Jos_24:32. How then is it here said to be bought by Abraham? Dr. Whitby's solution of this is very sufficient. He supplies it thus: Jacob went down into Egypt and died, he and our fathers; and (our fathers) were carried over into Sychem; and he, that is, Jacob, was laid in the sepulchre that Abraham brought for a sum of money, Gen_23:16. (Or, they were laid there, that is, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.) And they, namely, the other patriarchs, were buried in the sepulchre bought of the sons of Emmor, the father of Sychem.

Also, see the following from Apologetics Press.

The apologetic press writes, "We know that Abraham lived for a time in the land of Shechem, even building an altar there (Genesis 12:5-6). We also know that Jacob went to Shechem and set up his tent there about 185 years later (Genesis 33:18). Perhaps in the intervening time period, the native people had taken back the land, and, rather than fighting to reclaim what already was his, Jacob simply bought the land back peaceably. Thus, the land would have been purchased twice—first by Abraham, and then, almost two centuries later, by Jacob. This, too, appears to be a logical reconciliation of the facts."

I think the supplication given at the end of this last post may be a bit presumptuous. I am not doubting the logic, but the sentence both in Greek and English reads fine as is translated and grammar is strained to supply all that that is added by the apologetic press.

I do think the route of appealing to possible tradition is a safer route. Maybe all Jews knew that Abraham had originally purchased that land. Maybe Abraham to them was representative of the nation at large in Stephen's speech. Those are more probable.

What do you guys think of the conclusion that Stephen misspoke and Luke accurately records his historical blunder?

 

[panta dokimazete]

What do you guys think of the conclusion that Stephen misspoke and Luke accurately records his historical blunder?

If it could be conclusively proven that Stephen erred (which it cannot) - how then is Scripture failing in a matter of faith or practice?

In my experience - "What if?" is a game that leads to an infinity loop of purposelessness.