One of the notable historical and textual difficulties in the New Testament appears in Stephen’s speech in Acts 7:15–16. While recounting the history of the Israelites before the Sanhedrin, Stephen describes the burial of Jacob and the patriarchs in a tomb associated with Abraham’s purchase of land from the sons of Hamor in Shechem. However, when this account is compared with the Old Testament, differences emerge concerning the buyer, the seller, and the burial place.
According to Genesis 23, Abraham purchased a burial place for his family from Ephron the Hittite. The property was the cave of Machpelah, located near Mamre, close to Hebron. Abraham purchased the field and cave to bury his wife Sarah. Later, Abraham himself, Isaac, Rebekah, Leah, and Jacob are associated with this family burial place in the biblical narrative (Genesis 49:29–32; 50:13). This account establishes Machpelah as the principal burial site associated with Abraham’s family.
The account of the land at Shechem is different. Genesis 33:18–19 states that Jacob purchased a plot of land near Shechem from the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem. The passage identifies Jacob, rather than Abraham, as the buyer. Later, Joshua 24:32 records that Joseph’s bones were buried at Shechem on the land Jacob had purchased from the sons of Hamor. Thus, the Old Testament associates the purchase at Shechem with Jacob and the burial there with Joseph.
Acts 7:15–16, however, appears to combine elements of these accounts. Stephen says that Jacob and the patriarchs died and were carried to Shechem, where they were placed in a tomb Abraham had purchased from the sons of Hamor. This creates an apparent discrepancy: Genesis attributes the purchase of the Shechem property to Jacob, while Acts attributes it to Abraham. Furthermore, the Old Testament distinguishes between Abraham’s burial property near Hebron and Jacob’s land at Shechem.
How might this difference be explained?
Some interpreters suggest that the passage in Acts may reflect a different tradition or a complicated transmission of the patriarchal burial stories. Others have proposed that the wording may have been intended to connect Abraham’s purchase with the burial traditions of the patriarchs. However, the text itself does not clearly explain how the two purchases should be reconciled, and these proposals remain interpretations rather than established facts.
It is also important to recognize the purpose of Stephen’s speech. He is presenting a broad account of Israel’s history to make a theological argument, rather than offering a detailed geographical or legal record of every burial. Nevertheless, the historical details remain relevant when comparing Acts with Genesis and Joshua.
Ultimately, the passage raises a genuine textual and historical question. Genesis identifies Abraham’s purchase at Machpelah and Jacob’s purchase at Shechem as separate events, while Acts appears to associate Abraham with the Shechem purchase. Whether this reflects a different tradition, a textual difficulty, or an error in the account remains a matter of scholarly discussion.
Leave a Reply