Albert Barnes Commentary Acts 7:15

"And Jacob went down into Egypt; and he died, himself and our fathers;" — Acts 7:15 (ASV)

Verses 15-16. And died. (Genesis 49:33)

He, and our fathers. The time which the Israelites remained in Egypt was two hundred and fifteen years, so that all the sons of Jacob had died before the Israelites departed for the land of Canaan.

And were carried over. Jacob himself was buried in the field of Machpelah by Joseph and his brethren (Genesis 1:13). It is expressly said that the bones of Joseph were carried by the Israelites when they went into the land of Canaan and buried in Shechem (Joshua 24:32).

No mention is made in the Old Testament of their carrying the bones of any of the other patriarchs, but this is highly probable in itself. If the descendants of Joseph carried his bones, it would naturally occur to them to also take the bones of each of the patriarchs and give them an honorable sepulchre together in the land of promise.

Josephus (Antiquities, Book 2, Chapter 8, Section 2) says that "the posterity and sons of these men (of the brethren of Joseph), after some time, carried their bodies and buried them in Hebron; but as to the bones of Joseph, they carried them into the land of Canaan afterward, when the Hebrews went out of Egypt." This is the account Josephus gives, and it is evidently in accordance with the common opinion of the Jewish writers that they were buried in Hebron.

Yet the tradition is not uniform. Some of the Jews affirm that they were buried in Sychem (Kuinoel). As the Scriptures do not anywhere deny that the fathers were buried in Sychem, it cannot be proved that Stephen was in error. There is one circumstance of strong probability to show he was correct.

At the time this defense was delivered, Sychem was in the hands of the Samaritans, between whom and the Jews there was violent hostility. Of course, the Jews would not be willing to concede that the Samaritans had the bones of their ancestors; and therefore, perhaps the opinion had been maintained that they were buried in Hebron.

Into Sychem. This was a town or village near Samaria. It was called Sychar (see notes on John 4:5), Schechem, and Sychem. It is now called Naplous, or Napolose, and is ten miles from Shiloh and about forty from Jerusalem, towards the north.

That Abraham bought. The word Abraham here has given rise to considerable perplexity, and it is now pretty generally conceded that it is a mistake. It is certain from Genesis 33:19 and Joshua 24:32 that this piece of land was bought not by Abraham, but by Jacob, from the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem. The land which Abraham purchased was the cave of Machpelah, from the sons of Heth, in Hebron (Genesis 23). Various solutions have been proposed for this difficulty, which it is not necessary to detail. It may be remarked, however:

1. That as the text now stands, it is an evident error. This is clear from the passages cited from the Old Testament above.
2. It is not at all probable that either Stephen or Luke would have committed such an error. Every consideration must lead us to the conclusion that they were too well acquainted with such prominent points of Jewish history to commit an error like this.
3. The probability, therefore, is that the error has arisen since; but how is not known, nor is there any way of ascertaining. All the ancient versions agree in reading Abraham. One manuscript only reads "Abraham our Father." Some have supposed, therefore, that it was written, "which our father brought," and that some early transcriber inserted the name Abraham.

Others suggest that the name was omitted entirely by Stephen; then the antecedent to the verb "bought" would be "Jacob" (Acts 7:15), in accordance with the fact. Other explanations have also been proposed, but none are entirely satisfactory. If there were positive proof of Stephen's inspiration, or if it were necessary to establish that, the difficulty would be much greater.

But, as has already been remarked, there is no decisive evidence of Stephen's inspiration, and it is not necessary to establish that point to defend the Scriptures. All that can be demanded of the historian is that he should give a fair account of the defense as it was delivered. And though the probability is that Stephen would not commit such an error, yet, even admitting that he did, it by no means proves that Luke was not inspired or that Luke has committed any error in recording what was actually said.

Of the sons of Emmor. In the Hebrew (Genesis 33:19), this is the "children of Hamor"—but these are different ways of rendering the same word.