Over on The Stuff of the Earth, Michael Pahl has an interesting post regarding Craig Blomberg and the shift toward the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis in solving the Synoptic problem (though, in the light of this shift, should we perhaps start calling it the Farrer-Goulder-Goodacre hypothesis instead?).
What's particularly neat about it isn't that the shift is occurring, so much as what should be attributed as its cause. Goulder has indicated in the past that he always achieved local success in persuading people against the 2SH. People he engaged were more likely to be persuaded by him, and the effect was diminished the farther one got away. This would seem to indicate that while it's ultimately Goodacre's (and Goulder's, and Farrer's, of course) argument that's winning the day, it's his presence online that opened up the battlefield. Yet another example of how the digital age is changing the playing field.
In a similar vein, I'd encourage readers to view Goodacre's post on synoptic problem terminology, particularly the comments by Frank McCoy. As one who thinks that John's copy of Luke wasn't much farther away than Luke's copy of Matthew, I definitely sympathize with McCoy's points.
Update Be sure to check out Hypotyposeis, where Stephen Carlson weighs in on the question of synoptic terminology