I've spent quite a bit of time, not just analyzing the syntax-patterns as 'a dating tool', but also the inter-play with the vocabulary patterns. And even though the diagrams look 'absolute-ish', if you drill down to the verse and word levels, it's not nearly so clear at all.
So, if I were to characterize this whole analysis of dating and layers, I'd say it's most similar to something that you could make out in the fog. If you were driving, you'd probably want to ease your foot off of the accelerator, but certainly not slam on the brakes (just yet!).
I'm actually most comfortable with the Old Testament analysis (which surprises me, given its age and potential for loosing language patterns). When I first saw the results, I was sort of 'floored'. How could something that old have those patterns? I call it 'spooky'.
The New Testament analyses are much more troubling. Even though the analysis on the previous pages looks consistent with prior scholarly research conclusions in general, there's problems. It really appears to me, that at least half of the writings 'follow' changes in the 1st-century theology. There's just too many inconsistencies, likely insertions, unsubstantiated statements, and so forth. I really think the NT canon needs a 'fresh look'.
Here is what I see as the theological implications.
(1) INSPIRATION Both the OT and NT are very likely composite writings. I personally believe pieces of Genesis and Exodus go, quite possibly, back to the time of Moses, whoever he was. But for sure, the Bible is not 'one-book' - 'one-writer' and all words inspired directly by the hand of God. It's possible and even likely, they're inspired ... God's not limited per se. As a Christian, fragmentation actually increases my confidence in the the Bible. Ever since my younger days, the every-word-inspired claim sounded hard to conceive of. Am I out-of-bounds theologically? I don't think so ... the New Testament verses on inspiration referenced Old Testament text that clearly had issues, even at the time (LXX vs proto-massoretic differences).
(2) YHWH/ELOHIM It's obvious the divine names bounced around quite a bit throughout the Old Testament. Even the New Testament bounces around on 'Jesus', 'Christ', 'Spirit' and 'Holy Spirit' (the english translators were kept busy with their 'spirit' upper-casing issues!). I don't know that 'JEDP' equates to a geographical sourcing or a divine evolution. I think it's hard to say one way or the other, at present.
(3) OT PROPHESIES My analyses so far don't support the validity of the prophesies, nor do they suggest they're not valid. Most of the Christ-related prophesies quite clearly originate from the exilic and post-exilic periods. Does that mean something special?
(4) NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY Here, the situation gets a bit gray-er. I think Mark and Paul are probably about the same time, though I can't imagine where Mark might have written from. Matthew and Luke are quite a bit 'later', along with John. My take on Matthew isn't too complementary. He did correct a number of Markian errors. But his 'word for word' copying? He was jewish, copying from a gentile, about the divine? That sounds positively strange! The only way I can reconcile that, is if Mark were representing Peter or James (the tradition being Peter).
The Matthew and Luke additions to Mark are curious. I tested several versions of 'Q', without finding any patterns much different from their host writers. Matthew seemed quite comfortable with word-for-word copying ... I'd bet Matthew is 'Q'. If you use the syntactical patterns, Luke very likely got his 'Q' from Matthew's older hebrew. My guess on 'Q' comes from the Eusebius' quote from Papias ... Matthew's sayings in hebrew. Matthew likely(?) included them in his greek version. Luke and others had trouble translating them?. Possible. Here's a short analysis of the 'datings' (small differences here are significant, since we're averaging):
The theology in Paul's writing quite clearly shifts, from what you see in the gospels. If indeed there was an early Jesus-sayings source, a shift would almost have to occur, since the sayings wouldn't be much different then the similar Gospel of Thomas later on. (ie no basis for a 'church')
The question in my mind is where did Paul's theology come from, since it is independent of the Jesus sayings? Paul said he got it in a vision. It was clearly different from 'Jerusalem'. Whatever you may think about the veracity of Paul's visioning, the whole western Roman empire bought it. So, there must have been something to back it up. Paul said he had 'powers' and so did the other writers. Maybe so.
Out of curiousity, I 'dated' the key theological words in the New Testament ... words like 'baptism/ize, Holy Spirit, Christ, salvation, sin, and so forth. About 50 of them. Then using the verse-level, I summarized them on a spreadsheet to see what the pattern was:
(a) The basics you find in Mark and Paul indeed 'date' early. But some of the theological concepts take a while to show up ... resurrection, Son of God, sacrifice, forgive, and crucify. It's not clear that the theology was late ... only the way the theology is described appears to have evolved (how's that for logic?).
(b) Most of the jewish theological words are later, primarily due to their appearance in the gospels and John's writings. I would guess that was due to the expansion of Christianity into the diaspora.
Below is the top-left of the analysis spreadsheet. Values are 'percent of verses' that have the monitored word.
(5) NT INSERSIONS/CHANGES Over the last few months, I've worked quite a bit with the 'dating' results, and then tracking the theology over 'time'. I'm convinced the NT writings were NOT viewed as 'inalterable', compared to how the church viewed the OT writings. There's just too many NT examples of changes and insertions. I don't think they were 'nefarious'. Some do look dishonest, at least in terms of our values. The early church HAD to have viewed the NT writings as similar to a 'guide' ... they often clarified, remembered something said, and so forth. Not unlike the early Torah.
Turn to the next page for 'my take' on Christian believability. (smile!)