Quote Originally Posted by Adrian II
There is no standard position. The synoptic problem as such is recognized by alll scholars, but solutions vary widely. Most Catholics adhere to the Augustine hypothesis that Matthew preceded Mark and Luke. Many Protestant scholars prefer Markan primacy or a Mark + 'Q' soluton (that is, Mark plus a hypothetic fifth text called 'Q'). Among North American Protestant scholars the Two Gospels Hypothesis is popular, which says that Matthew came first, Luke next, and Mark third, while Mark essentially copied Matthew except when he disagreed with Luke, in which case he followed Luke. And then there is the originally British Farrer-hypothesis, the Jerusalem-hypothesis, &cetera.
I think a Mark/Q sourcing is the standard view. I wasn't referring to or considering sectarian positions.

Looking at the review again, Thompson is quoted directly on the Synoptic Problem:

There the quote from the book stops. Is Thompson about to reveal the reason why the notion is without merit? If we want to know the answer we had better read the book.
It's hard to engage an idea or know the author's view until actually reading the book. I don't think there is much more that can be done on this point.

I would be interested to hear your own views on some of the other topics we touched upon in this thread. With your background as a Mormon you should be more than familiar with some of them.
Let me know if there is a particular point you want me to address. As a general response: Mormons reject inerrantist postures. Also, from a Mormon perspective one should expect to see religious parallels and cross influencing. On a personal note: I think any system that makes truth claims should expect and welcome challenges to those claims, otherwise they run the risk of loyalty to dogma over a pursuit of the true.