Craig A. Evans, “The Two Source Hypothesis,” in The Synoptic Problem: Four Views, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Bryan R. Dyer (Baker Academic, 2016), 34-35.
Matthew and Luke make good exegetical sense as interpretations and adaptations of Mark, but Mark makes little sense as an interpretation and conflation of Matthew and Luke. When compared to Mark, Matthew’s interest in showing how Jesus fulfills both prophecy and law is plainly evidence. When compared to Mark, Luke’s interest in showing how Jesus’s saving work applies to the marginalized, including Gentiles, is hard to miss. Countless commentaries and scholarly monographs have benefited from the recognition of Markan priority and the respective ways the evangelists Matthew and Luke have made use of the earlier Gospel.
This cannot be said for the hypothesis that views Mark as the last to be written and as drawing on the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. No one has written a detailed commentary that shows how our understanding of Mark is enhanced by seeing how he has blended or omitted Matthean and Lukan materials. Matthew prioritists speak of Peter, the voice behind Mark, as attempting to bring together the divergent Jewish and Hellenistic views of Matthew and Luke respectively. This is plausible in theory, but there has been no success in showing how exegetically this is actually so. One would think, moreover, that the tradition of authentic Petrine material lying behind Mark fits better with an early Mark, on which later evangelists would rely.
The Amateur Exegete 