Chris Keith, The Gospel as Manuscript: An Early History of the Jesus Tradition as Material Artifact (Oxford University Press, 2020), 122-123.
The author of Matthew’s Gospel thus attempts to occupy not only the same narrative space as Mark’s Gospel but also the same physical space in the hands of “the reader” (Mark 13:14//Matt 24:15). Matthew absorbs Mark’s words at Matt 24:15, but the implication is that “the reader” is now holding Matthew’s Gospel instead of Mark’s Gospel. On this basis, [J. Andrew] Doole is correct to detect a Matthean impulse to “usurp” Mark.
Matthew’s Gospel does not outright reject Mark’s Gospel. Matthew’s Gospel is more nuanced than that…. My all accounts, Matthew’s replication of Mark’s media format was overwhelmingly successful if surviving manuscripts and patristic citations are any indication of ancient reality. Matthew’s Gospel would proceed to become substantially more popular than Mark’s Gospel in the early church, but it did so by harnessing the technology and the gospel format that Mark first introduced to the Jesus tradition.
The Amateur Exegete 
Scholars like Eta Linneman and Lydia McGrew constantly campaign for the “independently draw upon a common stock of oral tradition” to explain why Matthew and Mark look so similar. But if most Christian scholars accept the two source theory, then the only way the Etas and Lydias of the world can disparage the two-source theory is by committing themselves to the premise that a person’s becoming authentically born-again guarantees nothing about their knowledge of the bible, despite the fact that the bible requires that all such people do indeed have the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9). God still just sits back and watches his sincere followers fumble around, disagreeing with each other…almost as if God were a Calvinist, and wanted all this intellectual carnage despite commanding them to “know the truth”, lol.
LikeLiked by 1 person