I understand the struggle, but the exact issue is what Paul may mean by "three years," and what Luke may mean by "many days." Paul's reckoning is inclusive counting, and in absolute time according to our reckoning, this could reasonably be 18 months (or less) to 36 months. Luke represents some subset of this time (according to his knowledge) as "many days," and the idea is one of sufficiency, as you say, or largeness. I'm not so sure we should imagine the plot against Paul's life to have developed so quickly let alone his own network of devoted disciples (Acts 9:25) to have develped so quickly, since vv. 21-22 suggest a social setting where he came unknown, and had to establish himself after considerable time (v. 23). I do appreciate the sense of speed, but I lay out more clearly in the book why I question it.
I don't think Luke is just switching to the first person, but that only here/around here he was with Paul. This makes sense of the view that Luke's purpose in writing Acts was in part as an apologetic for Paul (for between Chapters 24-26 we have a string of trials and trial discourses), and then the first person would correspond to the progress of the narrative and movement (27-28), which Luke was only a part of at that time. Then the book ends. So I don't think it is at all arbitrary. I do admit that the leveling of all the "we" material if it came from different authors seems counter-intuitive, but if the author is choosing to name none of his sources, not even himself, then what else would be expected? Once it is recognized that all major "we" theories suffer from a prior implausibility in light of the general picture, then I think what I propose competes quite well with the others and can even win out as a more reasonable view in light of the evidence. Thank you very much for commenting.
Thank you,
I understand the struggle, but the exact issue is what Paul may mean by "three years," and what Luke may mean by "many days." Paul's reckoning is inclusive counting, and in absolute time according to our reckoning, this could reasonably be 18 months (or less) to 36 months. Luke represents some subset of this time (according to his knowledge) as "many days," and the idea is one of sufficiency, as you say, or largeness. I'm not so sure we should imagine the plot against Paul's life to have developed so quickly let alone his own network of devoted disciples (Acts 9:25) to have develped so quickly, since vv. 21-22 suggest a social setting where he came unknown, and had to establish himself after considerable time (v. 23). I do appreciate the sense of speed, but I lay out more clearly in the book why I question it.
I don't think Luke is just switching to the first person, but that only here/around here he was with Paul. This makes sense of the view that Luke's purpose in writing Acts was in part as an apologetic for Paul (for between Chapters 24-26 we have a string of trials and trial discourses), and then the first person would correspond to the progress of the narrative and movement (27-28), which Luke was only a part of at that time. Then the book ends. So I don't think it is at all arbitrary. I do admit that the leveling of all the "we" material if it came from different authors seems counter-intuitive, but if the author is choosing to name none of his sources, not even himself, then what else would be expected? Once it is recognized that all major "we" theories suffer from a prior implausibility in light of the general picture, then I think what I propose competes quite well with the others and can even win out as a more reasonable view in light of the evidence. Thank you very much for commenting.