That’s literally 75 years after the fact. Scholar put Mathew between 80 and 110 years after the fact so a century as I correctly pointed.
I understand you don’t like being faced with the fact that the gospels were written with a clear political agenda long after what they depict and that the canon is mostly an exercise in late Roman politics. The fact remains.
You can try to push out mathew to 110 but it gets kinda tough....if there is that much of a gap between mark and mathew why do we have lots of mathean quotes in the early church and virtually none from mark? Kinda stretches credulity, for me at least.
I feel that if Mark really did enjoy a lengthy period as the of extant gospel it should have acquired a sort of prominence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus#Chronolog...
When I google Colin Humphreys, he seems to be a physicist who dabbles in bible studies. According to Wikipedia, his argument was that the Last Supper occurred on a Wednesday instead of a Thursday, not that he disagreed with anyone about the year.
This is essentially a few decades after the fact.
It's very challenging to really try to push Mathews gospel much further than 80s AD - and even that date has some serious problems.
You seem to have cherry picked certain (older) views... it was certainly popular in the last century to try try push the dates well into the second century but this approach is very fraught and can't be well supported at present.