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:
#31 – Implausibility of Abraham interacting with the sons of Hamor
A Historical and Textual Contradiction Another possible biblical contradiction is related to the historical implausibility of Abraham interacting with the sons of Hamor. According to Genesis 34, Hamor and his son Shechem lived during Jacob’s lifetime, a period long after Abraham’s death. This discrepancy makes it unlikely Abraham could have purchased land from them. Additionally, the text of Genesis 23 does not indicate that Abraham owned other burial sites, and it seems illogical that Jacob would buy a tomb already owned by his grandfather.
How Does Ehrman Err?
Stephen’s speech before the Sanhedrin recounts Israel’s history, and one detail he mentions seems at odds with the Genesis narrative:
“…their bodies were brought back to Shechem and placed in the tomb that Abraham had bought from the sons of Hamor at Shechem for a sum he paid in silver.”
— Acts 7:16, Berean Standard Bible
Ehrman raises a fair point — in Genesis 23, Abraham buys a burial cave at Machpelah, near Hebron, from Ephron the Hittite, not from Hamor. Meanwhile, Genesis 33:18–19 states that Jacob (not Abraham) bought land at Shechem from the sons of Hamor. So how can Stephen say “Abraham bought it from the sons of Hamor”?
Let’s walk through this carefully — both textually and theologically — using a sound hermeneutic and solid background from Scripture and scholarship.
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. The Alleged Contradiction
- Genesis 23:17–20 (ESV) – Abraham’s purchase:
“So the field of Ephron in Machpelah, which was east of Mamre… was made over to Abraham as a possession for a burying place.”
- Genesis 33:18–19 (ESV) – Jacob’s purchase: “And Jacob came safely to the city of Shechem…and from the sons of Hamor, Shechem’s father, he bought for a hundred pieces of money the piece of land on which he had pitched his tent.”
These are clearly two distinct events — one in Hebron (by Abraham) and one in Shechem (by Jacob). Hence, Ehrman argues that Luke (through Stephen) confused them.
But there are several plausible explanations that show no contradiction when we read this historically and contextually.
2. The Telescoping Explanation (Summarized Accounts)
According to the Precept Austin Acts 7 Commentary, Stephen’s statement in Acts 7:16 is not an error but a telescoping or summary of several familiar Old Testament accounts:
“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.”
— PreceptAustin.org, Acts 7 Commentary
Stephen was summarizing Israel’s patriarchal history to show God’s faithfulness. His purpose was not to give a detailed archaeological record, but to stress that the patriarchs were buried in the Promised Land, demonstrating their faith in God’s covenant.
In ancient Jewish rhetoric, summarizing and blending parallel accounts was a conventional method of teaching truth. The main point (not the topography) was theological — that “God’s promises extend beyond any single locality” (cf. Acts 7:48).
3. Textual and Historical Possibilities
- Abraham’s Earlier Purchase at Shechem
Some scholars — for example, Gleason Archer and other conservative exegetes — posit that Abraham may have purchased an altar site at Shechem early in his journey (cf. Genesis 12:6–7), when he built an altar to the Lord. Over generations, that land could have reverted to local control, requiring Jacob to repurchase it.
- This fits Precept Austin’s summary:“It is possible that Abraham made the original purchase from sons of Hamor… He built an altar there (Gen. 12:6–7) and quite likely purchased the plot of ground on which he built it.”
— PreceptAustin.org, Acts 7 CommentaryIf that is true, Stephen’s words accurately reflect an oral or traditional memory of Abraham’s earlier connection with Shechem, later reaffirmed by Jacob’s purchase.
- The Plural “They” Indicates Multiple Patriarchal Burials
Acts 7:15–16 speaks of “our fathers” (plural) being buried there, not just Jacob. Joshua 24:32 supports that Joseph’s bones were buried in Shechem:
“As for the bones of Joseph, which the people of Israel brought up from Egypt, they buried them at Shechem…which Jacob bought from the sons of Hamor.”
Therefore, Stephen’s focus is theological — connecting the fathers’ shared faith and burial in the Promised Land. His mention of “Abraham” as the forefather of faith owning land in Shechem ties all the patriarchs together spiritually, if not geographically.
4. Theological and Rhetorical Context
Stephen’s audience already knew these texts precisely. If he’d “made a historical blunder,” his hearers — hostile, well-versed rabbis — would have pounced on it. They did not. Instead, they were enraged not by supposed factual errors, but by Stephen’s accusation of their hardened hearts (Acts 7:51–54).
This proves the issue was not one of mistaken history, but of spiritual confrontation. Stephen was not giving a geography quiz — he was proclaiming the sovereignty of God and the unbelief of Israel’s leaders.
5. Biblical Consistency
The Bible repeatedly affirms that Scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16), cannot be broken (John 10:35), and is without error in what it affirms (Psalm 12:6). Therefore, any supposed contradiction must be understood in its literary and cultural context.
The diversity of detail reflects different emphases, not historical confusion.
6. Summary Response
So, in short:
- Stephen conflated the two related accounts into a theological summary — a common ancient rhetorical device, not a factual error.
- There is possible evidence that Abraham previously owned land in Shechem that Jacob later repurchased.
- Stephen’s goal was theological, not cartographical — showing that the patriarchs trusted God’s promise of the land.
- His Jewish audience raised no historical objection, which would be unthinkable if he had said something blatantly false.
Biblical Foundation for Confidence
- Acts 7:16 — “Their bones were carried back to Shechem and laid in the tomb that Abraham had bought…”
- Genesis 12:6–7 — Abraham’s first altar is indeed at Shechem, indicating connection to the site.
- Joshua 24:32 — Confirms patriarchal burials at Shechem.
Thus, the apparent discrepancy dissolves when we read Stephen as a first-century Jewish preacher emphasizing spiritual continuity, not modern forensic precision. The Holy Spirit, through Stephen, wanted to magnify God’s faithfulness to His covenant, not list property deeds.