to Michael BG,
I always though Mark implies that Jesus’ ministry is one year and Luke just takes it over and adds a fictional year for it to happen in. The reason is because Luke’s wants his readers to think he is writing a history which has dates from known history.
"Mark" might have implied one year, but "Luke" was more precise for this one year because of Lk 4:19. Where did you see "Luke" added a fictional year?
Your studies include believing that Luke, a known liar, can sometimes tell us about an event and link it to an historical event or figure and he didn’t make up the link.
"Luke" was no more of the liar that the other writers of the NT, including Paul. But that's no reason for accusing her on systematically
lying on any data about the timing, sequencing (rather formal info with no religious connotations) and some events (some misplaced and often very much embellished because of religious consideration) of Paul's travels.
I think your methodology is faulty. You assume that because Luke and Paul don’t agree that Luke can’t have known Paul’s letters and changed things. I think this be like thinking that John couldn’t have known, Mark, Matthew and Luke because he radically changed what they wrote to suit his purposes. You need to consider why Luke could have made the changes rather than just create the stories out of nothing.
Well we cannot generalize. I got my reasons why I think "Luke" and her community did not have the Pauline epistles to the Corinthians & Galatians. See http://historical-jesus.info/75.html
As for gJohn, I made an in-depth study, saying that the gospel is, along many years, the product of additions to the original one (when "John" knew only of gMark) made when gLuke became known, and then after, when Acts became known: http://historical-jesus.info/jnintro.html
It seems you have not considered that you are in error and the three verses should be seen as an aside so it should be read:
Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cili'cia.
Then after three years I-came-up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me.
First, it's not three years, but fourteen years. (Gal 2:1). Shall I conclude from that you are a systematic liar? No, I won't. It is just a mistake.
The three verses in question must be Gal 1: 22, 23 & 24.
I see no reason to put Gal 1:23 aside. It seems to me you consider these verses against your point. And yes, it is.
1:21 then I came to the regions of Syria and of Cilicia,
1:23 But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past
[at that time] now preaches the faith which once he destroyed;
2:1 Then, after fourteen years again I went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, having taken with me also Titus;
BTW, do you know anybody else who concluded, from the above verses, that Paul preached for fourteen years in Syria & Cilicia?
As I said you read this second section about being in Syria and Cilicia for 14 years in a different way to how you read the first section about being in Arabia and Damascus for three years.
Yes I read it a different way because of Gal 1:23.
And fourteen years is an abnormal long time for preaching in the cities of Syria & Cilicia. And no epistle addressed to Gentile Christians in these provinces during all that time!