Die Frage ist insofern spannend, weil sie uns mit einem Phänomen konfrontiert, das wir auch heute noch kennen. Es ist die mangelnde Exaktheit einer kulturell gelebten Religion zu ihren Quellen. Lukas beschreibt uns, was Stephanus gesagt hat. Und die Tatsache, dass er Ungenauigkeiten und vermeintliche Fehler mit beschreibt, zeigt, wie genau und verlässlich er als Chronist arbeitet. Gleichzeitig ist es aber so, dass in jeder gelebten Religion neben den eigentlichen Quellen immer auch eine Tradition besteht, die für die Gläubigen gleichwertig ist und als Argument herangezogen werden kann.

Ein Beispiel. Würde ich heute jemanden nach Weihnachten fragen und ob da die Heiligen Drei Könige zum Stall gekommen sind, wo der Esel und der Ochse standen, dann würden wohl die meisten Christen in Deutschland sagen: „Ja, genau so war es!“ Und sie würden das so sagen, weil sie von dem an Weihnachten allgegenwärtigen Krippenspiel geprägt wurden. Ihr „Bibelverständnis“ ist abgeleitet von einer Kinderaufführung. Wenn man ihnen dann sagt, dass es nicht drei Könige, sondern eine unbekannte Anzahl von Weisen war, die auch nicht zum Stall, sondern zu einem Haus gekommen sind, und dass von Ochs und Esel nirgends die Rede ist, dann wären sie erstaunt. Und so ist es in jeder Religion. Es gibt neben den Quellen auch noch die Tradition, das was die Kultur aus der Religion macht.

Und genau das findet man bei Stephanus. Aus der Sicht des modernen Bibellesers ist seine Argumentation fehlerhaft. Aus der Sicht seiner Zuhörer so vernünftig, dass man ihn dafür steinigt.

Zurück zu den Fragen (Apostelgeschichte)
Zurück zu Fette Beute, Woche 8 - Tag 3

Hier noch eine Quelle:
https://www.christian-thinktank.com/baduseot.html

Indeed, Stephen's speech in Acts 7 contains several problems, with four of these in verses 2-8 (including the two you mention). But his usage is well within the parameters of acceptableness in the day. So, Longenecker (EBC, in.loc., emphasis mine):

„There are a number of difficulties as to chronological sequence, historical numbers, and the use of biblical quotations in Stephen's address that have led to the most strenuous exercise of ingenuity on the part of commentators in their attempts to reconcile them. Four of these difficulties appear in vv. 2-8. Verse 3 quotes the words of God to Abraham given in Genesis 12:1 and implies by its juxtaposition with v. 2 that this message came to Abraham „while he was still in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran,“ whereas the context of Genesis 12:1 suggests that it came to him in Haran. Verse 4 says that he left Haran after the death of his father, whereas the chronological data of Genesis 11:26-12:4 suggests that Terah's death took place after Abraham's departure from Haran. Verse 5 uses the words of Deuteronomy 2:5 as a suitable description of Abraham's situation in Palestine, whereas their OT context relates to God's prohibition to Israel not to dwell in Mount Seir because it had been given to Esau. And v. 6 speaks of 400 years of slavery in Egypt, whereas Exodus 12:40 says 430. „We need not, however, get so disturbed over such things as, on the one hand, to pounce on them to disprove a „high view“ of biblical inspiration or, on the other hand, to attempt to harmonize them so as to support such a view. These matters relate to the conflations and inexactitude of popular Judaism, not necessarily to some then-existing scholastic tradition or to variant textual traditions. In large measure they can be paralleled in other popular writings of the day, whether overtly Hellenistic or simply more nonconformist in the broadest sense of that term. Philo, for example, also explained Abraham's departure from Ur of the Chaldees by reference to Genesis 12:1 (De Abrahamo 62-67), even though he knew that Genesis 12:1-5 is in the context of leaving Haran (cf. De Migratione Abrahami 176). Josephus spoke of Abraham's being seventy-five years old when he left Chaldea (contra Gen 12:4, which says he was seventy-five when he left Haran) and of leaving Chaldea because God bade him go to Canaan, with evident allusion to Genesis 12:1 (cf. Antiq. I, 154 [vii.1]). Likewise, Philo also placed the departure of Abraham from Haran after his father's death (De Migratione Abrahami 177). And undoubtedly the round figure of four hundred years for Israel's slavery in Egypt–a figure that stems from the statement credited to God in Genesis 15:13–was often used in popular expressions of religious piety in Late Judaism, as were also the transpositions of meaningful and usable phrases from one context to another.

And, relative to the burial location, the same phenomena can be seen in the LXX and in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Longenecker again): “…the confusion in v. 16 between Abraham's tomb at Hebron, in the cave of Machpelah, which Abraham bought from Ephron the Hittite (cf. Gen 23:3-20) and wherein Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were buried (cf. Gen 49:29-33; 50:13), and the burial plot purchased by Jacob at Shechem from the sons of Hamor, wherein Joseph and his descendants were buried (cf. Josh 24:32). Again, these are but further examples of the conflations and inexactitudes of Jewish popular religion, which, it seems, Luke simply recorded from his sources in his attempt to be faithful to what Stephen actually said in his portrayal. And again, they can in large measure be paralleled elsewhere. Genesis 46:27 in the LXX, for example, does not include Jacob and Joseph but does include nine sons of Joseph in the reckoning, thereby arriving at „seventy-five souls“ all together who went down to Egypt. And with this number both Exodus 1:5 (LXX) and 4QExoda at 1:5 agree. So, Stephen's inexactitude seems to fall in line with at least some of the more obvious contemporary Jewish practices, as evidenced by the LXX, Qumran, Josephus and Philo. [Note also: (1) that the Hebrew MS at Qumran called 4QExod(a) gives 75 as the correct number–in agreement with the LXX, over against the Hebrew MT!; and (2) Stephen was a Hellenist and spoke Greek anyway–the LXX would be his choice NOT because he was a „Christian“ but because he was a Hellenistic Jew]