It is Matthew’s treatment of Peter that causes me to wonder if the traditional dating is correct, so saying that my concern would call the traditional dating into question does not help. It is precisely that dissonance that troubles me. 

Consider Mark 8:27-30 compared with Matt 16. Why does Mark, usually identified as a disciple of Peter, not say how Peter got his nickname.  I assume he knew and omitted it on purpose. I suspect because there was a belief that Peter would lead the church until Christ’s return, so Peter’s death is problematic. Mark downplays a unique role for Peter. If Mark is Matthew’s source, Matthew went out of his way to elevate Peter. It troubles me because the only solution that occurs to me upends the traditional dating.

I am getting ready to retire from my job as a data analyst and want to study NT in retirement. I did get a M. Div. from a Baptist seminary 40 years ago, but I never used it so I am removed from most current scholarship.

I will add the books you mentioned to my growing reading list.  

You have given me a new question. I was taught that Mark was necessarily dated after the death of Peter precisely because he was Peter’s disciple. How is it that we no longer view him as a follower of Peter, but we keep the same date. If Mark is just some guy, why doesn’t any date after Greek became the common language of the church work?

Let me put forward my idea. 

There were 3 competing leaders of the church: James, Peter, and Paul. James was martyred in 62CE. Matthew is written to convince people, especially followers of James, to follow Peter. Luke becomes aware of Matthew and writes Luke to counter Peter. Luke writes Acts to argue for Paul. Matthew is written during Peter’s life and Acts is written during Paul’s life.

Either Mark is written using both Matthew and Luke, or Mark is first, but written before 62.

References to the destruction of the Temple are not late. In fact they are authentic and come from  an apocalyptical sermon by Jesus on Jeremiah  17.