"Luke" seems to fixate on Greco-Roman history what with his (incorrect) citings of a census and his dating of events to the reigns of Roman emperors. However, most scholars insist on 70 as a date for Luke because of the mention of the "little" apocalypse but that is just a date of convenience as they don't wish to acknowledge the absurd idea of "prophecy" and yet it is the earliest time the temple was destroyed....even if that is not exactly what ole jesus says.
In any case, "Luke" cannot be written in 70 and cite Josephus. The logical conclusion is that Luke dates from much later.
In any case, "Luke" cannot be written in 70 and cite Josephus. The logical conclusion is that Luke dates from much later.
