Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

I haven't done any in-depth study of the relationship between John and the synoptics, but the prevailing scholarly opinion as I understand it is that John did not use Mark as a basis for his narrative the way Matthew and Luke did. This doesn't mean, though, he had no access to any of them. I don't know any reason to suppose he couldn't have had his own copy of Mark but just more or less ignored it. Obviously, he had to have gotten the basic outline of the story from somewhere, and if his was the last to be written, then that outline would have been common knowledge in whatever Christian community John belonged to. For a long time, though, I've been intrigued by the possibility that John's gospel might have been the first one written. I'm a long way from making up my mind about it, but I've yet to see a killer argument against it.

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Which would only add to the views that the epistles were written by more than one author, which could suggest that Acts was written by more than one, and each of the gospels was as well. In which case it's impossible to know what existed as the core original text in the beginning which then became embellished as time went on. And of course if one speaks of work over time, the question would be how much time until the final product appeared, and when was that?

Originally Posted by outhouse

except we cannot group tthem all together


its a known fact not all the epistles or original, and some originals redacted

Add to the fact we dont know the second or third hand information the author of Gluke used. As far as Im aware, Gluke was one author with acts.

there will always be a possibility for redaction as its the norm, more so then not