"Instead of Markan priority, I believe the question of synoptic priority fundamentally intractable given the myriad assumptions involved and, in any case, largely irrelevant for a proper narrative reading of the Gospel of Matthew (and for the Gospels of Mark and Luke and perhaps John as well)" (xvii).
"The ‘flow of the gospel as a totality’ is in practice not take seriously, and 'the criteria which the text itself supplies' are permitted little regulative function. The parts thus seem much greater than the whole. At root, the commentary’s approach is redaction-critical and, as a result, the synchronic, narrative dynamics of the Gospel are largely lost" (6).But consider this final quote. He adds:
"It is my considered opinion that the question of Markan vs. Matthean priority is intractable and thus still open, however. Every criterion employed to decide the question involves problematic assumptions that can in almost every instance be falsified by the data of the Gospels themselves. Consider the criterion of Christology. Is it accurate to say that Christology rises in a rough trajectory from lower to higher over time, or is this idea really rooted in the philosophy of evolutionism and the Enlightenment assumption that the real Jesus was a moral teacher divinized by Paul, and, later, by the bishops and councils of the early Church?" (132)Here are my takeaways. First, don't neglect reading the text of the Gospels. The "fruit of the tree" in Gospel studies is devoting all one's energies on the origin of the Gospels. "He used this. They used that. Etc." Read the Gospels. And pay attention to things like tense, voice, mood, person, number, phrase order, clause order, etc.
Second, don't fully buy into redaction criticism. By the way, Huizenga's frustration with redaction criticism is one that I share. I actually believe that Jesus said "An apprentice is not above his teacher . . . " during his teaching on the Sermon on the Mount/Plain; I don't think Luke, seeing it used at a different point in time during Jesus' ministry, thought it would look nice in his adaptation of Jesus' sermon. It might sound crazy, but people actually taught the same thing more than once in the first century!
Third, when you read arguments based on internal evidence dealing with Gospel origins, think about what the opposite position's explanation might be of that passage/text. There is probably another explanation.
By the way, he calls the different readings in Matt 26:64 (σὺ εἶπας) and Mark 14:62 (ἐγώ εἰμι) "a passage which greatly complicates the theory of Marcan priority" (6; he discusses this on 133). Feel free to check it out if you're curious about what he says.
Huizenga, Leroy A. The New Isaac: Tradition and Intertextuality in the Gospel of Matthew. Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill, 2009.