Hello Aaron! Thanks for taking the time to respond.

What you’ve written is actually very close to what we find in history.

In the early church, everyone LOVED Matthew. It was the pre-eminent Gospel in the early church community for generations.

While Mark was barely loved at all.

It appears most people saw it the way you did: that they already had Matthew, so why would they need Mark, when it’s so similar?

Now of course, there are fairly substantive differences, especially in its focus. Mark focuses on the stories that Peter was present for, and often emphasizes Peter’s own failure within them.

Whereas Matthew presents a more full-orbed picture of the disciples, Mark highlights their failures, particularly Peter’s, which serves to heighten Jesus’ love and grace toward them.

When you understand that Mark is recording Peter’s own telling of the stories, it gives you a great window into how thoroughly Peter repented of his brash, bold, arrogant personality, from which he rebuked Jesus for saying that He would die.

It seems the early church appreciated Mark as Peter’s testimony, and held it as authoritative and a full Gospel along with Matthew, but Matthew always dominated the landscape.