Trying to defend stuff like this is stupid and only makes you look gullible and desperate. Just FYI.

But here are the things you should have asked yourself already:

Why did you change what the story was?

That’s not what was described as happening. No one was staring at the sun in an open sky. It was after a rain and thus cloudy with elevated mist and people were noticing (or by mass hysteria claiming) visual effects around the sun that do not require staring at it or even seeing it clearly at all. And the crowd stayed there ten minutes. No single person stared at the sun at all, much less a whole ten minutes.

The descriptions recorded that matched the different observation points are the ones that match common solar phenomena projected through moving mist. So we know what really happened. It would not harm the eyes to see this. And it would require no magic to produce it. And no virgin was seen in it. Just spectral and reflective color shifts through mist.

The more ridiculous reports of what was seen don’t match the others that did match each other, so we know what happened there, too. People delude, exaggerate, confabulate, and lie. If they were seeing what they claim, everyone would have. But they didn’t. Which means what they saw happened only in their mind (or not at all). What happened is what was corroborated. Which lacks nothing not already a known meteorological and optical phenomenon.

You should already know all of this.

So you need to ask yourself: why didn’t you?

Zero Eye Damage: Staring at a midday sun for 10 minutes guarantees widespread solar retinopathy. If 70,000 people were just staring at the sun, why are there zero medical records of eye injuries in Portugal after the event?

Distant Witnesses: Unsuspecting people 11 miles away saw the landscape change colors. Since they were completely isolated from the main crowd, how does a mass suggestion model explain these synchronized, distant visions?

No Blinding Glare: Witnesses reported the sun safely became a “silver disc” before they stared. If the blinding glare vanished first, how could retinal burn trigger the optical illusion?

The more plausible interpretation is that Paul’s reference to “the Twelve” pertains to the Twelve Tribes

I am missing the context here. More plausible than what? [Update: This was in response to the comment above by Miller.]

Because no other interpretation has been offered here. Pretty much everyone agrees with you on that. It matches practice at Qumran, who also had a council of twelve running things in anticipation of the resurrection of twelve tribes.

Perhaps you mean 1 Cor 15 means Jesus “appeared to the tribes” but then it would say that, and also, it can’t have meant that, because 1 Cor 15 is describing the limited circle of those having authority to preach (see Gal 1), so in no way can he have meant mass appearances to millions of people. Likewise, he only says one of the listed appearances was en masse, the brethren (who, by receiving a mass vision, are not identified as apostles: they did not receive a personal vision appointing them to authority). The twelve therefore can only mean individual persons (not even an appearance to twelve “all at once” as Paul only says that of the non-apostolic brethren), and thus he means twelve individual persons, thus something like the Qumran council.

The Gospels’ reinterpretation of “the Twelve” as “twelve apostles” represents a later development

Incorrect. That the twelve were apostles is established in Paul, because 1 Cor 15 and 9 and Gal 1 show that that was the definition of an apostle (receiving a personal vision of Jesus appointing you; as opposed to a mass sighting, which did not confer apostolic rank), and the word means “one sent,” i.e., “missionary,” and the twelve were that (as Paul attests repeatedly). Likewise, when Paul lists ranks in the church, apostles are at the top (1 Corinthians 12:28; 1 Corinthians 4:9). So there was no other rank the twelve could be (as confirmed in 1 Corinthians 9:5).

It’s possible you are confusing “apostle” (one who received a vision) with “disciple” (a student of a living teacher). Paul never mentions disciples, even when he mentions ranks in the church (neither does Hebrews or 1 Clement or 1 Peter, BTW), so that concept definitely was invented later. As might also have been most of their names.

Similarly, James explicitly addresses the Twelve Tribes in full, yet makes no mention of the apostles whatsoever. This confirms communication between early Christian authors and the Twelve Tribes but does not establish the existence of the Twelve Apostles.

The Gospels’ reinterpretation of “the Twelve” as “twelve apostles” represents a later development, and Paul himself neither establishes such an identification nor introduces an alternative meaning. Instead, he relies on existing knowledge—knowledge that, in this case, is the only one proven to exist at that time and place: the Twelve Tribes of Israel.

[Update: This is in response to the comment above by Miller—Ed.]

Because those are all singular.

Paul makes clear only this event was a mass appearance (only this occurred “all at once,” meaning all the rest are private, and thus separate, appearances, not group experiences). That tells us two things: (1) it was different and (2) it was more likely (as data shows that kind of thing is what most usually) caused by some ambiguous external stimulus.

It is also possible this was a charismatically anchored ecstasy, i.e. no external stimulus existed, but whoever was charismatically leading the ecstasy told or primed them to see something, which in their altered state their brains all duly provided (that is also among the well-documented phenomena we have in the psychological science of religious experience). I discuss this possibility and the science (as well as the other possibilities) in OHJ, Ch. 4, Element 15.

But the other experiences (scattered, fleeting, entirely individual and private) are by that data most likely internal (as Paul reports, Jesus was revealed “in him” not as an external stimulus, contra Acts, although Paul could have read an external event as an internal one, so we can’t rule that out, it’s just less frequently the cause of a string of isolated and fleeting visions). And the language is indistinct as to whether waking visions or dreams are meant (either or both can be the case, as ancients made no particular distinction when believing a God appeared to them: if did not matter whether it was in their sleep or not).

I’m not sure what theory you are advancing. Paul had no long-term goals, because he thought the world would be melted in his lifetime. He was certainly subverting imperial values, but not to destroy the Empire, but to sit it out with a “purer” kingdom within it created by Christian action until Rome was literally vaporized by God.

I recommend this video by David Skrbina where he explains this theory in detail.
https://youtu.be/XMqvP2m1Dqs?si=gwlWNodFnVhKRmTm

I can also confirm that, at least in that church, the type of glossalalia depicted in Acts happened not a single time! Definitely never any fire or appearance thereof! And definitely never any real languages! Though there were certainly anecdotal accounts of speech in tongues where real languages were spoken! But somewhere else! Argumentum ad trust me bro! Hic Rhodus Hic salta!