Why not Matthew's use of Luke? - Cambridge 2019

On 13th November 2019 I will be presenting a paper at the Cambridge Postgraduate New Testament Research Seminar - see abstract below.

The backstory to this paper may be traced via the following links:

1. The Matthew Conflator Hypothesis (video and article)
 2. The $1,000 Challenge to Bart Ehrman 
3. Garrow vs Goodacre at BNTC 2018 - and also a report by Tim Murray
4. Richard Bauckham explains how he came to think that Matthew's use of Luke is probably correct.
5. Goodacre presents his answer to: 'Why not Matthew's use of Luke?' at SBL 2018 - a LAB report by Rob MacEwen

Paper Abstract 
Once Markan Priority is accepted three simple solutions to the Synoptic Problem become available: 
1. Luke used Matthew; 
2. Matthew used Luke; or
3. Matthew and Luke both independently used Q. 
The adoption of Option 1 requires the demonstration of its superiority to Option 2.
The adoption of Option 3 requires the elimination of both Option 1 and Option 2. 
Regrettably, almost every attempt to solve the Synoptic Problem over the past 200 years has assumed the non-viability of Option 2 – but without direct investigation. 
The recent resurgence of interest in the case for Matthew’s use of Luke (Huggins, Powell, Hengel, MacEwen, and Garrow) has brought this embarrassing omission to light. 
This paper asks the long overdue question: Why not Matthew’s use of Luke?
Alan Garrow
www.alangarrow.com