More resources for interpreting the Bible are free online now than ever, or at least easily accessible. There's blueletterbible, with easy access to free Greek dictionaries and analytical information. This site has an entire interlinear of the whole Bible for free. You think of a resource like Logos software, that bundles massive amounts of things. There are incredible study Bibles the likes the world has never seen before.
So what do we mean when we say, "most scholars think..."? This is the age old question of who counts as a scholar. You can certainly get a certain impression of what most free materials seem to say. The things for free or easily available tend to be King James type fundamentalist sources. So do "most scholars think Ezra wrote Ezra"? You might get that impression if your main sources are individuals like John MacArthur, who I would not consider a real Bible scholar.
A true Bible scholar on a particular aspect of the Bible is someone who 1) has advanced understanding of the original languages, especially in relation to the text in question, 2) knows the history of interpretation of that text, 3) knows the historical-cultural background against which that text has been interpreted, and 4) strives to be objective in relation to an inductive reading of that text.
The last one can lead to various debates. So a certain kind of scholar might be very knowledgeable on the first three but insist that certain presuppositions must guide the processing of evidence, rather than going with the most likely inductive reading of the text.
Suffice it to say, most of the free and most accessible materials tend to be ideologically rather than objectively driven. Most people have no idea what a world class Bible scholar actually looks like. And, unfortunately, these types tend to be locked in an office somewhere publishing expensive monographs no one has ever heard of. This type of person may have no idea that Logos has buried them in masses of interpretive dung that is so cheap and easy to obtain. This type of person may not be a particularly good communicator.
So what am I to do if Walvoord and Zuck are cheap and readily available and give the impression that most scholars think Matthew was written in the early 50s? "Most scholars" don't think this at all. Basically, "most scholars" need to start putting things on the web for free or at east make it relatively inexpensive and readily available.