As I illustrated above with my illustration of language about living in Japan, the statement about “staying in Jerusalem” obviously does not mean in any common use of language that they were never to leave the city for any reason for any length of time whatsoever.
And, no, I don’t interpret it in this unnatural way to iron out the supposed contradiction regarding Galilee in Matthew’s account, but by reading the very next sentence in Luke…
And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high." And he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them…
Bethany is not in Jerusalem.
The inclination to interpret “stay in the city” as “stay in the city at all times without exception, not leaving it at all for any period of time for any reason whatsoever” is an understanding I fear that grows partly from that aforementioned inclination to find a contradiction and dismiss any alternate reasonable explanation… even though that understanding is not supported even by the immediate context of the next sentence within Luke’s own account. And we must remember, an omission is not a contradiction.
My military orders required me to “stay in Japan” for about six years. During which period of time you may well have found me in Florida, South Carolina, California, Bahrain, Yemen, Korea, Mongolia, Hawaii, Guam, Seychelles…
Topical arrangement of material for stylistic or literary purposes is not typically called out as an error, except by those inclined and determined to find contradictions at any cost.
Obvious hyperbole and other such rhetorical devices, similarly, are not usually called out as “errors”, except, again, by those with a demonstrated need to find a contradiction at any cost.