Welcome to “Ehrman Errs,” a blog series devoted to using our conversational AI to refute each alleged biblical contradiction that is posed in the article on Bart Ehrman’s website: 50 Contradictions in the Bible: The Biggest, Most Shocking Differences.
Today’s alleged contradiction:
#30 – Stephen’s Account of Abraham’s Tomb in Acts:
A Historical and Textual Contradiction In Acts 7:15-16, Stephen, during his speech before the Sanhedrin, claims that Abraham purchased a burial place in Shechem from the sons of Hamor. This account introduces several significant problems when compared to the Old Testament narrative. According to Genesis 23, Abraham purchased a family tomb in Machpelah near Mamre from Ephron the Hittite, where Sarah, Abraham, Isaac, Rebekah, Leah, and Jacob were all eventually buried. On the other hand, Genesis 33:18-19 and Joshua 24:32 state that the burial site in Shechem was purchased by Jacob from the sons of Hamor and that it was Joseph, not Jacob, who was buried there.
How Does Ehrman Err?
Bart Ehrman and others have raised this as an alleged “contradiction,” but a close reading of Acts 7:15–16 in light of historical context and Old Testament passages, as well as careful consideration of language and ancient summarizing techniques, shows that Stephen’s statement is not an error, but a deliberate condensation or telescoping of the patriarchal narrative for theological purposes.
Let’s start with the text in question:
“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.”
— Acts 7:15–16, ESV
At first glance, Stephen appears to conflate two Old Testament purchases:
- Abraham’s purchase of Machpelah (Hebron) – Genesis 23:16–20
- Jacob’s purchase of land at Shechem – Genesis 33:18–20
And indeed, Ehrman claims this is a “contradiction.” But as shown by scholarly sources such as the Precept Austin commentary on Acts 7 and researchers like Gleason Archer, this is not a contradiction, but a summary statement—telescoping two parallel events into one narrative statement for theological emphasis.
1. Stephen Is Summarizing, Not Misstating
In Acts 7, Stephen compresses several Old Testament accounts for rhetorical purposes. That’s part of his style throughout the speech. For example, in Acts 7:2, Stephen “telescopes” the two callings of Abraham in Genesis (first in Ur, then in Haran) into a single summary statement. This was a common practice in ancient Jewish teaching, which often condensed multiple related events under one thematic thread without intending to misstate history.
As the PreceptAustin commentary notes:
“The use of the plural in Acts 7:16 (“they”) tips us off that Stephen is conflating or telescoping several familiar accounts into a summary statement. Thus Stephen telescopes accounts of Abraham’s purchase of Machpelah site and Jacob’s acquisition of Shechem site which would be consistent with his telescoping of the two calls of Abraham in Acts 7:2.”
So Stephen is not “wrong”—he is summarizing two truths:
- Abraham’s faith purchase of land in the promised land (Machpelah).
- Jacob’s faith purchase of land in the promised land (Shechem).
By combining them, Stephen stresses the continuity of covenant faith from Abraham to Jacob—both made tangible investments in land that symbolized God’s promise, even though they were “sojourners” (Genesis 23:4).
2. The Theological Point: Faith in God’s Promise
Stephen’s speech is not simply a history lesson—it’s a theological indictment showing that Israel consistently rejected God’s messengers. In this section, Stephen is highlighting how the patriarchs demonstrated faith in the Abrahamic covenant when they arranged to be buried in the promised land. The choice to be buried in Canaan, rather than Egypt, was itself an act of faith in the promise of God (Genesis 50:24–25; Hebrews 11:22).
As the commentary explains:
“The specific requests of Jacob and Joseph to be buried in the promised land is a manifestation of faith in the Abrahamic covenant.”
By mentioning Shechem—symbolically Samaritan territory in his day—Stephen also prepared the narrative for the Gospel’s progression to Samaria in Acts 8. This is, as Rex A. Koivisto notes, likely intentional theological symmetry by Luke:
“A reference to an Abrahamic tomb purchase at Shechem would have brought to mind Samaritan territory — and Luke immediately follows this speech with the evangelization of Samaria (Acts 8:4–25).”
3. Scripture Is Historically Coherent
It’s also possible that Abraham did make an initial land purchase in Shechem early in his journey (Genesis 12:6–7 indicates he built an altar there). Ancient Jewish tradition (which Stephen might be reflecting) held that Abraham may have purchased land at that altar—later reacquired by Jacob. As PreceptAustin remarks:
“It is possible that Abraham made the original purchase from sons of Hamor (the owners) in Shechem… and over time the site may have reverted to them, necessitating Jacob’s repurchase.”
Thus, there’s no contradiction even on the historical level; the two land transactions could have involved the same family over generations.
4. The Broader Biblical Witness
This telescoping style and theological focus align with how Scripture often summarizes covenantal history. For instance:
- Hebrews 11:13 — “These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar.”
- Romans 4:20–21 — “No unbelief made [Abraham] waver concerning the promise of God… fully convinced that God was able to do what He had promised.”
- Psalm 105:11 — God promised His people the land of Canaan “as their portion for an inheritance.”
So Acts 7:16 doesn’t contradict Genesis or Joshua—rather, it harmonizes their theological message: the patriarchs all looked in death toward the same promised inheritance.
Conclusion
Stephen is making a profound theological point, not a historical blunder. His mention of “Abraham’s purchase in Shechem” reflects a Jewish rhetorical practice of summarizing parallel covenantal events to illustrate a unified faith-history.
So, the supposed “contradiction” disappears when we account for:
- The narrative telescoping style of Jewish retellings,
- The theological theme of covenant faith, and
- The typological significance of Shechem as the gateway to God’s expanding kingdom.
To use Stephen’s own example, just as Joseph’s brothers failed to recognize their deliverer the first time, many of Stephen’s listeners failed to recognize Jesus (Acts 7:52). The burial at Shechem stands as a reminder: God’s promises stand firm—even when misunderstood by men.