Why do conservative theologians prefer early dating of documents?

[LinuxGal]

The two-scroll document called Luke-Acts was probably written in about 95, based on the presence of material from the works of Josephus known to have been written in 93 CE.

That makes Jesus' so-called "prophecy" of the 70 CE destruction of the Jerusalem temple in the gospel of Luke like someone today claiming they found a novel written in the 1970s that has characters "Googling" stuff.

That also requires the book of Acts to breaks off with Paul entering Rome.  If it covered the death of Paul in 67 it would already be into the period of the Jewish War (66-70) which would undermine Christ's power of "prophecy".   Any fool and his dog could see what was coming once the war started.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The two-scroll document called Luke-Acts was probably written in about 95, based on the presence of material from the works of Josephus known to have been written in 93 CE.

That makes Jesus' so-called "prophecy" of the 70 CE destruction of the Jerusalem temple in the gospel of Luke like someone today claiming they found a novel written in the 1970s that has characters "Googling" stuff.

That also requires the book of Acts to breaks off with Paul entering Rome.  If it covered the death of Paul in 67 it would already be into the period of the Jewish War (66-70) which would undermine Christ's power of "prophecy".   Any fool and his dog could see what was coming once the war started.

I think you answered your own question.

Boru

[Jehanne]

Conservative theologians want to believe that the Gospels were eyewitness accounts written by eyewitnesses. Of course, it has been known since the 19th-century that the authors of Matthew & Luke were shameless copycats.

[brewer]

I always thought 'conservative theologian' was an oxymoron.