Upvote:7
This is one of the things that only appears in the synoptic Gospels, which of course are assumed to have shared sources, but not in John. As such, it effectively comes to us through only once source, and thus it isn't one of the things in the Gospels that we can talk about as historical.
As for what we do have, both Luke and Matthew copied the material from (the older) Mark, and then added their own elaboration to the story. However, they were clearly differently authored, as different things happened in them, and in different orders.
So what does that leave us with historically? Not much. If you want to read the original core of the story, read the account in Mark. But realize that even there, its likely just a story created by the author of Mark, not something intended to be a historical account. As with most of The Bible, its true value is spiritual, not historical.