I searched on Google books for the reasons if some scholars, as you mentioned, N T Wright, believe this verse Matt 22:7 could be a later addition, and found a reference from Charles A. Estridge's (2022) Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, where he mentioned some arguments of why scholars date the origin of Matthew's Gospel to a later time (after 70 AD) than the traditional view.
Blomberg, Carson, Gundry, and Maier are evangelical scholars that
date Matthew between AD 50-70. They cite the dispersion of the Jewish
Christians from Jerusalem around AD 50 and that Matthew was written
before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. There would have been
little need of a written gospel in Jerusalem before this time, since the
apostles and eyewitnesses of Jesus were still alive, and the church was
expecting Christ’s imminent return. Matthew 24 speaks of the
destruction of Jerusalem as being in the future. Mark and Luke also
speak of this event as future; and in Acts, the temple is still being visited
by the disciples.”. However, several modern scholars date Matthew
around AD 80-90 or beyond. .
The priority of Mark is important to this argument if Mark was written around AD 65-70. If Matthew quoted from Mark, then one would have to date Matthew later.
The conflict between rabbinic Judaism and the church in Matthew reflects a period in the AD 805 and 90s. This would have been after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Birkat ha-Minim—a curse on heretics that many modern scholars believe was mainly
against Christians. The Birkat ha-Minim, which was said at the end of synagogue liturgy, is credited to Shmuel ha-Katan and is usually dated around AD 85-90."
This school of scholars believes Matthews theological themes are
100 well developed for the middle of the first century. For these
scholars, the gospel’s use of “the potter’s field” the Trinitarian
formula for baptism, Christology, and the circulation of stories of
Jesus' body being stolen by the disciples indicate a later date.
Lastly, they also hold that Mark was written after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, This is because they believe Matthew 24 is not prophecy, but recorded history cloaked in prophetic language (an interpolation). They also read into Jesus' parable of the marriage feast (Matt, 22:7ff) a historical reality. Scholars believe
the king sending his army to destroy and burn the city (Jerusalem) must be an addition to the text. They also read Jesus’ weeping over Jerusalem as a reference to Jerusalem’s destruction, for he says, “Behold your house is [being] left to you desolate”
It would've been very strange if some scribe added a whole verse to depict the city destruction, because in most cases the scribal interpolation was limited to just a word or phrase if not for adding an explanatory note. Such a big interpolation to depict the already happened destruction as a prophecy would be unnecessary, though possible. Since there is no evidence surviving manuscript that lack the verse, so far, this is only a weak conjecture. One conjecture of Alexandros Pallis (1932), raises the objection on the grounds of rationality in the story, stating "For how is it rational to say that, whilst the feast was ready, it was held over until an army could be sent and a city burnt down?"