Christopher, I believe the word you’re referencing that is translated “then” in NIV (I believe?) is simply the word “and” in Greek (kai / καὶ). A most generic and common connective conjunction that could imply all sorts of things. For stylistic reasons it looks like NIV translated it “then”, but it is simply “and” which could imply all host of things depending on larger context, but for strict accuracy is usually just best translated “and”. it is translated as such in ESV and KJV, for instance.
a lot can happen in 40 days indeed!
I would be more than happy to discuss some of the details if you are interested… but as mentioned above, I personally don’t find an urge or need to iron out all the details, for reasons mentioned in my analogy above about the two accounts of my persian gulf story. Matthew wanted to select those parts of those 40 days and wanted to talk about Galilee, apparently, Luke selecting other details.
One thing that stands out to me is the obvious fact that, whatever Jesus did or didn’t mean by “Stay in the city”, he clearly couldn’t mean it in the strictly literalistic sense that they were not for any reason for any length of time exit those city’s walls, since the very next sentence says he led them out of the city to Bethany. Sure, Bethany is closer than Galilee, but neither are “in the city.”
So i understand Jesus words there easily could have been a general guideline, a principle not to relocate, or begin missionary journeys, or to move their gathering headquarters, or something to that effect. And again, this isn’t me forcing a foreign interpretation onto the text in order to avoid a contradiction… it is the very next sentence that qualifies and gives context to his instruction:
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. While he blessed them, he parted from them and was carried up into heaven. And they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and were continually in the temple blessing God.
(it should be noted that, also in Acts, where the command on"stay in the city until the Spirit’s coming" was repeated, and again they are recorded as having left the city with Jesus and returning before the Spirit’s coming. clearly the “stay in the city” instruction isn’t strictly literal.)
so he told them to “stay in the city”, then led them out to Bethany, and then they returned to the city. And recall this is either a very general summary, or one very small selection, out of the 40 day period where he said all manner of things, and I find the trip to Bethany unlikely o be the only excursion they made during an entire 40 days while staying true to the general principle of his command.
Also instructive to me is thinking about Jesus’s individual appearance to Peter alone… it is referenced in passing twice to my knowledge…
in Luke…
And they found the eleven and those who were with them gathered together, saying, “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!” Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread.
and in 1Corinthians(!)…
that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
Now this was surely an event of extreme significance and importance, but the details were not included anywhere, Luke making only the most passing reference. But as it is, those passing references make the accounts between 1Corinthians and Luke consistent on that part… that he appeared first to Peter, and then to the larger group of disciples.
Now, imagine if by some chance Luke had not made that passing reference… I suspect people would then see a contradiction between Luke and 1Corinthians. Did Jesus first appear to his disciples, or first to Peter alone, I would be asked.
Point is, please consider… if Luke had chosen to omit that one little relatively insignificant passing detail, simply because it didn’t fit his purpose, or for his own literary agenda, or for whatever reason as he selected from a great corpus of things he could have written about… would this very minor and rather insignificant omission have introduced an actual error or contradiction between the two accounts? of course not. such an omission would introduce a discrepancy or difficulty that we would probably be unable to easily harmonize. but it wouldn’t make a contradiction., even if I had no earthly idea how to so reconcile the two.
that, for what it is worth, is why I handle i variances between the resurrection accounts as i do… i personally don’t feel the need to reconcile every discrepancy, largely because i think it is simply and truly impossible to so reconcile them for these and other reasons… not because i believe them to actually contradict. there is just too much that may have happened in 40 days, too much selection, too many different (legitimate) agendas, too much that is a summary or overview not intended as a detailed blow-by-blow account, that even someone like me that works from the working assumption that there are absolutely no errors or contradictions whatsoever between the accounts would also affirm that i find them hopelessly irreconcilable, for the reasons i described above given my example about my persian gulf deployment.
we don’t have to reconcile the accounts to have prima facie confidence that they are all describing something accurate, even with different details, purposes, selection of material, and degree of summary or condensation involved. and, as somewhere mentioned above, the fact that they easily harmonize or line up is further evidence that these are all independent accounts, not accounts all gathered from the same source, and multiple independent attestation is a major tool used in historical study to confirm an historical account.
Well, again, i’ll observe that he specifies (twice) that they left Jerusalem, but I assume you mean left for the relatively long journey to go so far as Galilee. but again, just one thought to consider how i try to be generous to such historical accounts… It is conceivable that Luke didn’t know or was ever aware that the disciples ever went to Galilee. I don’t personally think that likely, given his research and familiarity with the eyewitnesses… i think it is better explained by his literary focus and specific purpose of writing and his literary agenda and outline of Acts where the gospel starts at Jerusalem and then went to galilee and then the ends of the earth, and describing the earlier trips to galilee would just have been (literarily at least) a bit of a distraction.
But it would be conceivable at least that he wasn’t aware of those journeys. and if so, (and here’s the point)… that would still introduce no conflict or contradiction into the account… Just like someone who had only heard me tell of my adventures in the persian gulf may have passed on that story and never shared that i ever went to Bahrain, being i orang of that fact… but this would not introduce a contradiction between his account and someone who related my adventures in Bahrain.