What was Mark for Matthew?

And in contrast to the previous two posts relaying Sim's Matthew’s Use of Mark: Did Matthew Intend to Supplement or to Replace His Primary Source? a new book on Matthew's relation to Mark by J. Andrew Doole apparently gives different answers to these questions, namely 'yes' to supplement and 'no' to replace:

J. Andrew Doole examines Matthew's sources, which the evangelist used to compile and compose his own story of Jesus. Doole suggests that Matthew was not disputing the Gospel of Mark, rather developing its tradition in a conventional manner to reinforce its authoritative position in the growing Christian movement.

I'm hoping Doole is in close dialogue with Sim's 2011 NTS article. The question remains interesting and I don't believe it is easy to answer completely one way or the other.

Matthew’s Use of Mark: Did Matthew Intend to Supplement or to Replace His Primary Source?


It's been awhile but I finally got to reading Sim's article. And according to Sim the answer is 'no' to supplement and 'yes' to replace. Here is Sim's view on this point:

Whatever value Matthew placed on Mark, he still viewed it as an inadequate presentation of Jesus’ story that required correction, improvement and expansion, and which needed to be updated to meet the needs of his intended readership. Once we acknowledge and understand the extent of Matthew’s dissatisfaction with Mark on a wide variety of issues, the common view that the former largely embraced and affirmed the outlook of the latter looks decidedly shaky.

Sim claims that Bauckham's view also sees Matthew intended to replace Mark. He points out that the Gospel of Mark did almost vanish in the second century. Thus:

...That Mark sits within the New Testament amidst the other Gospels and right next to the Gospel of Matthew is, in view of the argument presented in this study, more than a touch ironic.

Anyway I have to get back to other matters today, namely thesis writing.

Matthew to Replace Mark?

An article by David C. Sim, "Matthew's Use of Mark: Did Matthew Intend to Supplement or to Replace His Primary Source?." New Testament Studies, 57, pp 176-192

Abstract:

Most scholars acknowledge Matthew's debt to Mark in the composition of his own Gospel, and they are fully aware of his extensive redaction and expansion of this major source. Yet few scholars pose what is an obvious question that arises from these points: What was Matthew's intention for Mark once he had composed and circulated his own revised and enlarged account of Jesus' mission? Did he intend to supplement Mark, in which case he wished his readers to continue to consult Mark as well as his own narrative, or was it his intention to replace the earlier Gospel? It is argued in this study that the evidence suggests that Matthew viewed Mark as seriously flawed, and that he wrote his own Gospel to replace the inadequate Marcan account.

That the author of Mt made much use of Mk indicates a degree of acceptance I presume Sim also mentions this point, I'll peruse the article next visit to college.

An Example of a Textual Critical Approach
This blog is always at risk of being neglected. Especially when I have nothing new to add.
So this doesn't happen completely, the present post acknowledges Randall Buth's post on ευθυς in Matthew & Mark as a good example to students of the synoptic problem, because of its text-critical approach. This is not surprising in this case given Buth's text critical involvments (a shorter version of his post can be found at the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog.