Quote Originally Posted by Pindar
I think you missed the thrust of the potential criticism: the issue is that standard scholarly opinion has Mark as the Synoptic text on which Matthew and Mark depend. Thompson's work (based on the review) treats each as independently sourcing to a larger oral tradition. Much of his argument appeals to assumed tropes from Mathew and Mark. If there is a literary dependence then that would undercut his thesis at an early stage of analysis. Thompson does not appear to engage the conventional view. This is problematic.
I think you are mixing up Gospels here, but I get your point anyway. Thompson's answer would be, I guess, that all Gospels draw on previous sources. Besides, scholarly opinion often assumes that the later Gospels draw on Mark + 'Q' instead of on Mark alone. And then of course there is the issue of Paul's preceding letters. I think one would have to read Thompson's book to see what he makes of all of this in detail.