In my view, credible historical-critical scholars can no longer refer to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John as if any of them are singular productions or first century creations. All of these texts have 2-3 major strata evidencing very different editors, concerns, educational levels, etc.. All of these texts were being heavily edited and re-written well into the 2nd century. Ultimately, the Gospels that are in our Bibles and on which many, many commentaries are written are mid-2nd century productions, which is but to say that the majority of so-called scholarly and commentary literature is deeply wrong because it is deeply unscientific.
For example, the Gospel of Mark is not a Gospel from the 70s: it is a combination of a major stratum from the 70s and a major stratum from the 140s. All the commentaries, books, and articles that treat Mark as if it were a coherent, unified production of a singular moment in time in the 70s are essentially committing massive, gross and flagrant anachronism and thoroughly misunderstanding both strata.
This all reminds me of what a Hebrew Bible professor colleague has on the sign of his office: “The Pentateuch is a Post-Exilic Compilation.” Yes, the Pentateuch had many pre-exilic sources, but a massive amount of post-exilic editorial work was what created the Pentateuch as a standardized collection. The same kind of sign should be posted on the office of every historical-critical scholar of the New Testament: “The Four Canonical/Early-Orthodox Gospels are Coordinated Mid-Second Century Productions.”
https://vocesanticae.com/2020/09/08/fir ... -uploaded/
...but then he is both a Christian and a historicist worthy of a James McGrath. And yes: unfortunately the only comparison is an insult for me.
Where I realize that the biblical studies are definitively doomed.