http://journals.cambridge.org/action/di ... id=8196377
"Matthewâs Use of Mark: Did Matthew Intend to Supplement or to Replace His Primary Source?*" by David C. Sim [School of Theology/Centre for Early Christian Studies, Australian Catholic University]
"Most scholars acknowledge Matthewâs 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 Matthewâs intention for Mark once he had composed and circulated his own revised and enlarged account of Jesusâ 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."
It costs Â£20 to read this journal. so i thought that it is better for me to purchase a book about why scholars think matthew wanted to replace mark. does any one know any latest titles on the subject? thank you