Of course not. All those scholars involved in synoptics research were simply ignorant buffoons.
I most certainly agree, Sarcastic one. And I'd bet more than a few of the dissenters who agree with Matthean priority agree too.
But, since you're here to enlighten us, rather than trying to provoke us with a laundry list of rhetorical questions why not identify the major arguments underpinning Markan priority and (a) show us why they should be discarded and (b) argue for your preferred alternative?
Here we go, straight from the Wiki which does a fine job categorizing these non-arguments:
Ahem....
Content not present in Mark
Mark's gospel is by far the shortest, and omits much that is in Matthew and Luke. It is argued that he would be unlikely to omit important events from Matthew and Luke, if he had access to their gospels.[5][2]
[edit]
I fail to see how content not present in Mark means it was necessarily omitted. This argument gets flushed instantly. He could have just wanted to keep it simple or didn't feel they were of importance to his version of the story. But directly omitting?
Content only found in Mark
There are very few passages in Mark that are found in neither Matthew nor Luke, which makes them all the more significant. If Mark was editing Matthew and Luke, it is hard to see why he would add so little material, if he was going to add anything at all. The choice of additions is also very strange. On the other hand, if Mark wrote first, it is often the case that Matthew and Luke would have strong motives to remove these passages.[6]
Ah, what are these strong motives that Matthew and Luke would want to omit something from Mark? What agenda did Matthew and Luke have? Flushed.
One example is Mark 3:21, where we are told that Jesus' own family thought he was "out of his mind". Another is Mark 14:51-52, an obscure incident with no obvious meaning, where a man with Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane flees naked.
Significant too is Mark 8:22-26, where Jesus heals a man in a process that is slow and involves saliva; Mark Goodacre suggests both these features make it a passage more likely to be omitted than added,[7] implying Mark wrote first.
Yeah, apparently Matthew and Luke would want to omit the idea that they thought Jesus was crazy, and they'd totally want to cover up some random naked guy fleeing (issues of secret gospel of Mark for another day) that's totally a logical idea that a non-ignorant-buffoon would pick up as a defacto concept.
Alterations
Regarding verses where Mark differs from Matthew and/or Luke, it is often easier to see why Matthew or Luke would alter Mark than the reverse. For example, the pericope starting at Matthew 20:20 lacks a criticism of the disciples found in Mark 10:35 and later verses.[2] Matthew 8:25 and Luke 8:24 both lack disrespect towards Jesus from the disciples, portrayed in Mark 4:38.[2] Henry Wansbrough writes: "Mark is highly, even shockingly, critical of the disciples' lack of faith and understanding; Matthew and Luke both weaken this criticism, in a way that might be expected to have occurred at a time when reverence for the first leaders of Christianity was increasing."[8]
Mark's Jesus often seems more human than Matthew's. Davies and Allison[6] list a number of passages where Mark but not Matthew portrays Jesus as emotional (e.g. Mark 1:41, cf. Matthew 8:3), ignorant of some fact (e.g. Mark 6:37-38, cf. Matthew 14:16-17), or incapable of some action (e.g. Mark 6:5, cf. Matthew 13:58). They argue that it is easier to see why Matthew would edit Mark to make Jesus more divine and more powerful, than why Mark would edit Matthew to weaken Jesus.
Basically more of this "omission" concept. So because Mark portrays a somewhat more critical and less "Divine and powerful" Jesus, it HAD to be altered. Flushed.
Primitive and unusual language in Mark
Mark's Greek is more primitive than the other Gospel writers. Often, Luke or Matthew will state a parallel Jesus quotation much more eloquently than Mark. In addition, Mark occasionally uses an unusual word or phrase where Matthew uses a common word. It is argued that this makes more sense if Matthew was revising Mark, rather than the reverse.[6]
Care to explain how a "Primitive and unusual" style of Koine necessitates it came first?
Vividness and verbosity of Mark
When Mark and Matthew agree, Mark often has a more vivid, verbose version. It is argued that it is unlikely that Mark was inserting details into many Matthean quotes while leaving out huge events such as the birth of Jesus. Rather, this verboseness is explained as nearness to actual eye-witness testimony.[2]
"Vivid and verbose", yeah that totally objectively explains why Mark came first. While I agree, as you know, that Matthew probably had the Virgin birth narrative later interpolated in, I don't see how this detail issue necessitates that it came first. Perhaps you'd like to explain why it so heavily weighs in its favor. What exactly constitutes "Vivid and verbose". Matthew's pretty vivid and Verbose I'd say. Maybe Mark just decided to spice up the account.
Fatigue
Mark Goodacre lists a number of occasions where it appears that Matthew or Luke begin by altering Mark, but become fatigued and start to copy Mark directly, even when doing so is inconsistent with the changes they have already made. For example, Matthew is more precise than Mark in the titles he gives to rulers, and initially (Matthew 14:1) gives Herod Antipas the correct title of "tetrarch", yet he lapses into calling him "king" at a later verse (Matthew 14:9), apparently because he was copying Mark 6:26 at that point.[9]
Another example given by Goodacre is Luke's version of the feeding of the multitude. Luke apparently changed the setting of the story: whereas Mark placed it in a desert, Luke starts the story in "a town [nb 1] called Bethsaida" (Luke 9:10). Yet later on, Luke is in agreement with Mark, that the events are indeed in a desert (Luke 9:12). Goodacre argues that Luke is here following Mark, not realising that it contradicts the change he made earlier.
As pointed out by others, Fatigue can equally work against Markan Priority, it could have been Mark who was fatigued. If this concept is even legit. Assuming this fatigue argument has any weight to begin with, which I don't see why it would.
And that folks, are all the arguments behind this position that the majority of New Testament scholars hold. (Though not necessarily the majority of non-Protestant NT scholars).
Now on your turn perhaps you'd like to explain why those supporting Matthean authorship are wrong and why those "arguments" are remotely weighted in favor of Markan priority.
