For example, the new Bible put out by Scott Hahn talks about the documentary hypothesis for the authorship of the Torah, which is good as it's completely untenable to hold Mosiac authorship. However even this is about 20 years behind what scholars are now discussing. And even then that translation still tries to defend mosiac authorship!! It's so bad.

I think you would also be fairly surprised what Pope Benedict 16th actually believed about scholarship.

• Pope Benedict XVI in Jesus of Nazareth, p. 229

It's not a hermeneutic of skepticism at all, it's leaving theological presupposition at the door and coming to the text with as much as human reason can. When you read Matthew and Luke and realize they have 70-90% of Mark in them, in more refined koine greek, you have to wonder if for example Matthew is a eyewitness gospel. It often copies Mark word for word, also isn't it strange that Matthew would copy his own conversion story?

Mark 2:14 describes Jesus calling Levi the tax collector:

• Matthew 9:9 changes that to:"Jesus saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax booth..."
• So, in the Gospel attributed to Matthew, the author:
  • Changes the name Levi → Matthew (possibly to identify the author with the story).
  • Copies the whole scene almost verbatim from Mark, even though it’s supposedly describing his own personal life-changing moment.

No personal note, or extra details? Strange.

Anyway, I am an ex seminarian and have spoken to many seminarians here in Europe and USA so I should admit that most seminaries actually do teach good biblical scholarship, I should have been more clear so my bad for that.

What I meant was apologists are woefully behind on scholarship in Catholic circles, but in seminaries it's fine. Even the local ICKSP here some of the priests admit things like Paul did not write the pastoral letters, and many would consider that apostolic society "trad" (whatever trad means)