“In the part,” says the text (v. 32), “of the field which Jacob had bought of the sons of Hemor the father of Sichem for a hundred young sheep: and it was in the possession of the sons of Joseph.” In which words five [things] are to be noted. First: Where Jacob bought that field. In Genesis [it] is expressed distinctly (ch. 33:18 & 19): “He crossed over to Salem, a city of the Sichemites [Shechemites], which is in the land of Chanaan, after [he] returned from Mesopotamia of Syria: and [he] dwelt near the town. And [he] bought a part of the field, in which [he] had fixed [his] tents, from the sons of Hemor the father of Sichem, for a hundred lambs [agnis].” And the same [thing] [was] again signified afterward (Gen. 48:22), where [it] is also given to Joseph as a special possession [peculium] by that [Jacob]; as [it] is also repeated by B. John in the Gospel (ch. 4:5).
Second: [the fact] that [the things] which here are called “a hundred young sheep,” and [in] Genesis ch. 33 [are called] “a hundred lambs,” can be taken in two ways. First: so that sheep were truly given for the field. [There] was once a usual exchange [barter] of things, as I said in the questions On Buying [De Emptione] (in [part] 2.2, disputation On Justice). For also [in] Proverbs 27:26, in the Hebrew, [there] is “an exchange of the field [for] rams”; but in the Latin, “Hadi” (they are) “the price of the field.” This opinion Villalpandus defends (bk. 2 Apparatus, ch. 25, p. 388 & following). Second: so that by those sheep money is understood: and this St. Stephen (Acts 7:16) seems to confirm, saying: “This sepulchre [was] bought for a price of silver” — that is, with silver coins, which could be collected either from a hundred sheep sold (for so the moneys which had been received for sheep and asses are called by Plautus, “sheep and asses,” as Muretus expounds — bk. 9 Varied Readings [Variae Lectiones], ch. 15). In the Truculentus: “I promptly carried these mina-sheep into the city, in this purse [crumena].” And elsewhere: “I would beat the asses, if perhaps [they] should begin to cry out here from the purse” — or [the coins] which were called “sheep.” For [it] was very usual that a name of this kind [should] be imposed on coins, either because [they] have such a figure and image, or for some other cause. For thus [there] were coins [called] “oxen” [boves], concerning which, in the Life of Theseus, Plutarch said δεκάβοιον [dekaboion, “ten-ox”] & ἑκατόμβοιον [hekatomboion, “hundred-ox”] — as also [is] observed, in [his] Discourse on Coins, by Sebastian Eizzus: “Noctua” [owl]. Whence that [saying] of the Proverb, “the owl flies”: πῶλοι [pōloi, “colts, foals”], or “foals,” among the Corinthians: χελῶναι [chelōnai, “tortoises”], “Testudines,” concerning which above (ch. 5, q. 44), among the Peloponnesians. Whence that [saying], proceeding — Caelius [Rhodiginus] being witness (bk. 10, ch. 2): ταὶ ἀρεταὶ καὶ ταὶ σοφίαν νικῶντι χελῶναι [tai aretai kai tai sophian nikōnti chelōnai], that is, “tortoises overcome virtue and wisdom.” And a Lacedaemonian coin [was] called, by Eupolis, “Callichelonus” [fair-tortoise], aptly accommodated to the cross-bearing coin by our Gretser (tome 3 On the Cross, bk. 1, ch. 23). And hence ἄγνυσθαι, ὠνεῖσθαι, καὶ πωλεῖν [agnysthai, ōneisthai, kai pōlein, “to ___, to buy, and to sell”] — namely, from sheep, asses, and foals, as Muretus shows (bk. 10 Varied Readings, ch. 3). κόραι [korai, “maidens, girls”] [were coins] among the Athenians; finally, “sheep,” as Pliny clearly attests (bk. 18, ch. 13). And Servius first signified brass [bronze money] by the effigy of oxen and sheep. Pierius (bk. 10, p. 76): “That,” he says, “[it] is sufficiently established [that] brass [money] was first marked [signatum] by the sign of cattle, by Servius King of the Romans: whence Varro also — as [it] is in [= apud] Marcellus — said [that] one sheep [was] called a ‘multa’ [fine], when [he], being cited, neither answered nor, roused, was [stirred]. But ‘Vnum’ [One] he said in the masculine gender, either because [he] understood [it as] money [nummum], or in imitation of Homer.” And afterward: “Very many interpret πρόβατον [probaton, ‘sheep’] [as] quasi [it] is called πρόβασις [probasis], because [it] signifies the opulence of those things which [men] use for [their] living. But that we may persist in the sheep[-matter] (for broad [latum] is the word τῶν προβάτων [tōn probatōn, ‘of sheep’]) — where Hesiod says μαρναμένοις μήλων ἕνεκ’ Οἰδιπόδαο [marnamenois mēlōn henek’ Oidipodao, ‘fighting for the flocks of Oedipus’], the interpreters say μήλων ἕνεκα [mēlōn heneka, ‘for the sake of flocks’] is to be understood of dominion and riches, because the princes of old were wont to lead a pastoral life. Indeed the ancients held sheep in so great honor, that [they] thought wealth came [to be] from them only; and the Jurisconsults relate [that] ‘pecunia’ [money] and ‘peculium’ [property] [are] thence named: and therefore [it is] feigned [that] sheep once had golden wool. Hence, when Hercules, out of [his] African victory, had driven off nothing but sheep, [he] is said to have carried off golden apples [aurea mala] with him: for μῆλον [mēlon] means a sheep, and by that locution ‘apples’ is usurped [the same word means both].” Among the Gauls and Brabantines [Brabanters], coins were called “mutones,” that is, “rams” [arietes] — in French “moutons” — as [is] to be seen in the History of the Miracle of the V[enerable] Sacrament of Brussels (ch. 1 & 10), in Thomas of Cantimpré [Cantapratensis] (bk. 1, ch. 20), in René Choppin (bk. 2 On the demesne, sect. 7), [and] in Gregory of Toulouse [Tholosanus] (bk. 32 Syntagma, ch. 2, num. 22). And in German, “Berna,” as [is] to be seen in [= apud] Freyher [Freher] (bk. 3 On monetary matters, ch. 3, p. 42, from the Empress Adelheid’s ordinance for the monastery of Salfeld, and [from] Aeneas Sylvius, Bohemia, ch. 58); and [it] is rendered by M. Abbas Argenti under the year 1448; and [by] Fabricius (Saxon Origins, bk. 6, fol. 663): “Vrsus” [Bear], because the coin [is] distinguished by the sign of a bear; and thence “Batziones” — Freher, in the same place, p. 43. And therefore “young sheep” can rightly be taken here in this place [as] the name of sheep-lambs, or of τῶν ἀμνάδων [tōn amnadōn, “of the ewe-lambs”]; and, in Hebrew, “Keschitah” — as also [in] Job 42:11. And so Masius & Arias take [it].
Third: Yet that [point] too can be observed: [that] the Hebrew “Keschitah” has a certain allusion to a bow [arcus] — concerning which [see], in this matter, Jacob [in] Gen. 48:22. For “Kescheth” is a bow; but [there is] another letter “t” at the end [i.e. “Keschitah” vs. “Kescheth”].
Fourth: This field is said [to have been] bought not [by] Jacob, but [by] Abraham (Acts 7:16). Not a few judge — as, in this place, Masius, and, [in] Genesis, Eugubinus [Steuchus] and Lipomanus — [that] “Abraham” [is] there to be deleted; and that either the name “Jacob” [is] to be restored, or [that nothing] is to be restored, since from [what precedes], ἀπὸ τοῦ κοινοῦ [apo tou koinou, “from the common (context)”], [it] is clearly enough understood. But when certain booksellers [copyists] did not advert [to this], and remembered [that] the field [was] bought by Abraham in Genesis, but did not remember [that it was bought] by Jacob, [they] inserted “Abraham” into the text. But indeed Abraham bought [the field] not from the sons of Hemor, nor in Sichem, but from the sons of Heth, or from Ephron, at Hebron (Gen. 23). For so St. Jerome too, in the book On the best kind of interpreting, writes [that], on Matthew 13:35 [the text prints ch. 3], “Isaiah” crept in [irrepsisse] for “Asaph”; and, concerning “Zacharias” for “Jeremias,” many likewise assert [it] (Matthew 27:9). Nor yet [is] this fault [mendum] recent, since the Syriac text has the name “Abraham” in that passage of Acts; and this same difficulty St. Jerome touches [in] Epistle 101, nor yet does [he] dissolve [resolve] [it], but [promises he] will dissolve [it] elsewhere
(col. 1295)
[…elsewhere he will dissolve it;] but where [he] has [actually] dissolved [it], [it] does not appear. [There] accedes also the corrected edition of the Bibles [the Clementine Vulgate], which even now has retained that of the name [i.e. kept “Abraham”]. Others, therefore, want “Abraham” [to be] put for a grandson or for “Jacob” — [Jacob] who, in imitation of Abraham, had bought that Sichemite field. Others say other [things], as I noted on Acts 7. But [it] can briefly be said: [that] Abraham bought this place not in himself, but in his grandson, and [that] to him [Abraham] the purchase [is] attributed, because [he] made the beginning of buying something in Chanaan — in which [land he] had not had even a step of foot for many years (the same ch. 7, Acts v. 5).
Fifth: Hemor [Emor], in our Latin text, in the same Acts (ch. 7:16), is said [to be] “son of Sichem.” But [he was] not the son, but the father (Gen. 34). And indeed, in the Greek, & Syriac, & Arabic [it] is not said “son.” But in the Greek, indeed, [it] is thus: παρὰ τῶν υἱῶν Ἐμμὸρ τοῦ Σιχέμ [para tōn huiōn Emmor tou Sichem, “from the sons of Hemor of Sichem”]. But in the Syriac and Arabic, [there] is only “from the sons of Chamur [Hemor]” — no mention of Sichem being made. But the Greek phrase Ἐμμὼρ τοῦ Σιχέμ [Emmōr tou Sichem] is expounded in a threefold way. First: so that [it] be an epexegesis [explanatory apposition] — “from the sons of Hemor,” namely “of Sichem.” Second: by Junius, construing that passage so that [it] be a Hebraism; and the name of “Prince” is understood, in this manner: “from the sons of Chamur [Hemor], the Prince of Sichem.” But then, in the Greek, [it] ought to be, not τοῦ [tou], but τῆς [tēs]. Third: by others, so that [it] be understood as “Father.” For by this manner of speaking the writers sometimes imply the name of the parent — as Herodotus in [his] Clio: Ἄδρηστος ὁ Γορδίεω τοῦ Μίδεω [Adrēstos ho Gordieō tou Mideō], that is, “Adrastus grandson of Gordias, who was father of Midas.” Again, in [his] Thalia: Κῦρος ὁ Καμβύσεω [Kyros ho Kambyseō], “Cyrus [son] of Cambyses the father.” And Luke 24:10: Μαρία Ἰακώβου [Maria Iakōbou], “Mary the mother of James” — as, in that passage, the Syriac distinctly sets [it] down, and St. Mark (ch. 15:40). But if we retain “son,” [it] must be said [that] Sichem [Shechem] was indeed the son of Hemor, but [that] to him [Hemor] there was afterward a son whom [he] called, by his own father’s name, also “Sichem” — and [that] from this later Sichem Jacob bought the field; as [in] Genesis ch. 11, “Nachor” [Nahor] is twofold: one the father of Thare [Terah] and grandfather of Abraham; the other the son of Thare, and brother of Abraham.
This text, moreover, D. Jerome illustrates (in [his] Traditions on Genesis [Quaestiones Hebraicae]) in few indeed but apt words, when [he] says: “In that place of the Sichemites [Shechemites] Joseph is buried: and his mausoleum is seen there even today.”