I think that one could make a valid criticism of some of Fr Paul Tarazi's points of view, especially when he says some explosive things in class. However, if you take him "in context" and look at him all around, you realize that he has an agenda (which is knocking people off their feet so they will start reading the Bible, not just using the Bible to proof-text), which could be analagous to a "fool for Christ." Note I said "could be" because I don't seek to judge. He did revise his theory of sources and I think that was good.
my whole issue with the source theory was that sure, the scholars seemed to have proved their point, but there was never a motive, such as "why" it should be that way. To me it was always a way to seek to explain things that could just as easily be explained by God's grace. It's good to know how things might have come into being, I would say, in a physical, historical sense, but overall, the whole message centers around divine revelation, and such editorial processes were certainly part of God's plan.
Sorry, I'm rambling now