14—18.
λεύτησεν αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν : 16. καὶ µετετέθησαν! εἰς Συχέμ,
καὶ ἐτέθησαν ἐν τῷ µνήµατι ὃ ὠνήσατο ” ᾽Αβραὰμ τιμῆς ἀργυρίου παρὰ
τῶν υἱῶν Ἐμμὸρ ὃ τοῦ Συχέμ.
ἐπαγγελίας ἣν ὤμοσεν +
17. Καθὼς δὲ ἠγγιζεν 6 χρόνος τῆς ὁ Θεὸς τῷ ᾽Λβραάμ, ηὔξησεν ὁ λαὸς καὶ
ἐπληθύνθη ἐν Αἰγύπτω, 18. ἄχρις ὃ οὗ ἀνέστη βασιλεὺς ἕτερος, ὃς οὐκ
αµετετεθησαν; but in D µετηχθησαν, so Hilg. and Blass, who thinks µετετεθ. suggested by ετεθ. below—but D stands alone.
2 9 ωνησ. HP, Chrys.; φ NABCDE, so Tisch., W.H., Weiss, Wendt, Hilg.
Σεν for τον is read by ΔΝ) Β6Ο, and so Tisch., Blass (α and β), Weiss.
4 wpooev HP 31, 61, Syrr. Pesh. Harcl. text, Boh., Chrys. ; ωµολογησεν SABC 15, 36, Vulg., Sah., Arm. (Syr. Harcl. mg.), Aeth., so Tisch., W.H., R.V., Weiss, Wendt
(gloss, after LXX), rare in sense of “' promised,” and so επηγγειλατο DE tol. (Syr. Harcl. marg.), also Hilg., gloss for ωμολ. corrupted into ωµοσε.
δαχρις NAB3EHP; axpt B*CD, so Tisch., W.H., Weiss, Hilg. (see Grimm-
Thayer, sub v., on the two forms and Winer-Schmiedel, p. 63).
so W.H., R.V., Weiss, add er’ Αιγυπτον.
St. Jerome their tombs were shown at Shechem, and the Rabbinical tradition mentioned by Wetstein and Lightfoot places their burial there, a statement supported by a Samaritan tradition exist- ing to this day (Palestine Exploration Fund, December, 1877, see Felten and Plumptre, in loco). When we consider the prominent position of Shechem as compared with Hebron in the time of Joshua, there is nothing strange in the fact that the former place rather than Machpelah should have been chosen as the resting-place not only of Joseph but also of his brethren. Plumptre has ingeniously contended that St. Stephen might have followed the Samaritan tradition, cf. Acts vi. 5, and see Ex- positor, vol. vii., first series: ‘‘ The Samaritan element in the Gospels and Acts,” p. 21 ff., although we need not suppose that in this reference to the hated Samaritans Stephen proposed to show that not even they had been re- jected by God. There is certainly no difficulty in supposing that here and else- where Stephen might easily have adop- ted some popular tradition, and at all events the fact that the mistake, if it is one, is left unnoticed by the historian is a plain proof of the truthfulness of the record. But a further difficulty. Abra- ham purchases the cave of Machpelah, but from Ephron the Hittite, Gen. xxiii. 16. The sons of Hamor sell a field, but to Jacob—a field at Shechem, Gen. xxxiii. 10, Josh. xxiv. 32. How can we explain this with reference to the statement in the text? Shechem was the earliest settle- ment of Abraham when he entered «Canaan, and there he built an altar, Gen.
After ετερ. SABC,
xii. 6, 7. But no devout Hebrew wor- shipper, with all his reverence for holy places, would be content to see the altar so consecrated belonging to others, and so exposed to desecration; the purchase of the ground on which an altar stood would therefore seem to follow as a kind of corollary from the erection of an altar on that ground. This is at all events a more satisfactory solution than omitting the word *ABpadp or exchanging it for Ιακώβ (see Hackett). Ofcourse the read- ing of R.V., W.H. (as above), prevents a further difficulty as to the rendering of τοῦ Συχέµ if the reading τοῦ Συχέµ. is retained, cf. Wendt, critical note, p. 157 (edition 1899), who follows A.V. in sup- porting “the father of Sichem,’’ so Hackett, but see on the other hand Plumptre, Acts, in loca, and Felten, in loco. For the way in which the two purchases and the two burials may have been confused in popular tradition, see Zockler, Apostelgeschichte, p. 302, 2nd edit. (cf. Bengel, Stier, Nésgen).