Why the late dates?

       On Face book I got onto a textual criticism group and requested evidence for the later dating fo the gospels popular in acadamia.  After about a week I got this response.  My rebuttals are in Italics



"For example, Craig Keener notes the following reasons to Date Matthew after AD 70;

“Especially the following evidence seems to favor a date after a.d. 70:

(1) More than Mark or Luke (but much less exclusively than John, who writes in the 90s), Matthew particularly engages Pharisaism, which became a dominant element in early Syro-Palestinian Christians’ primary opposition mainly after 70. Indeed, Pharisees may have been much less hostile toward law-keeping Jewish Christians in the 60s (cf. Acts 23:6–9; Jos. Ant. 20.200–3).


Paul  was a pharisee and his exploits in the book of Acts shows more antogonism with the exception acts 22.   Phariseesm had been around since the period of the maccabees The Gospel give obvious motivation against christ in their monopoly of the temple.
In fact this theory mocks the integrity of Paul Who claimed to be a pharisee and persecutor of Christians within 10 years of the crucifixion.


(2) Matthew reflects a Jewish worldview closer to that of the rabbis than any other writer in the New Testament (although many other parts of the New Testament are equally Jewish). But the rabbinic movement began achieving prominence only after 70 (and even then, most common Galileans seem to have remained unaware of most of its views).


based on?  This is quite subjective.   Matthew was a jew at the same period as the rabbis that is why they are similar.
More importantly Rabbis had been around  since the diaspora and synagogue system pror to the 1st nectury.

(3) Matthew and Luke both probably depend on Mark, which probably derives from the mid-60s and may have addressed the church in Rome. The early church was well networked, so Mark may have circulated and become a standard work among many (cf. Lk 1:1) quickly; nevertheless, Matthew must have read and assimilated Mark, then invested a great deal of time arranging, drafting, and polishing his own Gospel. All this evidence suggests a date sometime after 70. (This argument of course falters if, with many conservative scholars, one dates Mark before the 60s. Contrary to accepted scholarly tradition, we lack definite reason to date it to the 60s or early 70s, and our assumption of a date for Mark no earlier than the mid-60s largely represents deference to consensus. Evidence for dating Mark before the 60s, however, seems to me no more definite.)



probably is not definitive  if the critics have the burden of proof then this needs solid evidence.  Matthew does not claim to be based on gospel sources and being an apostle Matthew was an eye witness.
Scholars such as Bruse Metzger make Mark an exception to the prophecy rule thus, there is no rule about the destruction here. (Oxford Annotated reference Bible)
Mark is based upon the preaching of peter who died in 65.  It would be assumed that this was done upon the approval of Peter prior to this.  However, archaeologist have claimed that Peter Died in Caesarea Phillippi.  Thus Peter would have been done in his campaign in Rome and some claim Mark to have ended up in Alexandria Egypt.  Therefore. Mark could have been written between the 40's and 50's.

(4) Matthew more clearly separates the disciples’ questions about the temple’s destruction and the world’s end for his readers than Mark does (Mt 24:3//Mk 13:2–4), even though Matthew’s Jewish readers would have been more familiar with the traditional prophetic perspective that arranged events according to their kind rather than according to their timing.”

Matthew is obsessed with His Jewish Audience understanding that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. As a result this gospel is constantly referencing OT texts.  When Jesus Prophecies he will be focused on separating end times prophecies over and apart from first coming prophecies. The Lord wanted to express the prophecies more specifically there. He also notes, “Other supporting evidence, such as the fire of Matthew 22:7, offers some support but is not as critical to the discussion.”
⁷ But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city."
  This part of a parable of christ.  One has to assue that atthew is not recording the words of christ at all.  It is not even claiming to be historical but instead a parable.


And again;

“The weight of some of the strongest arguments, including the situation the Gospel addresses, initially suggested to me a date as late as the mid-80s, making it (in my opinion) later than both Mark and Luke, but with a polemic less developed (and with opponents less powerful and less targeted) than in the Fourth Gospel in the 90s. Yet because I believe some post-70 bitterness toward Gentiles informs the need for stressing the Gentile mission (especially for those who would place this Gospel or its author in Antioch, a home of that mission), and because I believe other recollections of the trauma of 70 remain quite relevant to the church (including perhaps false teachers claiming a false parousia during the war), I am inclined to lower the date by perhaps half a decade and guess that Matthew was written in the late 70s.”
Robert Stein (NAC) argues for a date between 70-90 AD for Luke;


I notice that theological moderates like to hail stein as conservative.  And in several aspects he may well be.  However Stein has been willing to "go off the reservation" on several occasions and I believe this is one of those times.  We see the typical  Jesus did not prophecy insinuation here.

“If Luke used Mark, then Luke-Acts would have been written after 65–67 and thus after the events of Acts 28. The Lukan use of Mark would suggest a date of 70–90 for the Gospel.
Such a date fits well three additional pieces of evidence found within the Gospel.

The first involves the “many” accounts Luke referred to in 1:1. A later date would fit the existence of many accounts of Jesus’ life more easily than an earlier one.

The second involves certain prophecies concerning Jerusalem’s destruction in Luke which seem to look back at the events of a.d. 70. This in no way requires that these prophecies must be vaticinia ex eventu, or prophecies after the events; but it does appear that Jesus’ prophecies concerning Jerusalem’s destruction were written in light of the knowledge of that destruction. Passages such as 13:35a; 19:43–44; 21:20; 23:28–31, while not requiring a post-70 date, probably are best understood as having been written after the event.

The third piece of evidence involves the positive light in which the Roman government is portrayed. See Introduction 7 (4). This would suggest a date some years after the Neronian persecution in the midsixties and before the persecution under Domitian in 95–96.”

Not seeing any justification Mark waiting to 65 Ad. The positive light of Roman government would push the pre-neronian dating and not post.  If I were writing about Germany in 1950 I would not put a positive spin on their government but I could in 1920.  At least according to this logic.
 


In Conclusion,
It is amazing how many evangelicals bow before the specualtion of late dating!
The problem is that Textual Critics have "The Burden of Proof"
We have church history records which give us the authorship of the Gospels.  We can not simply make up theories to override the facts, that is simply conspiracy theory.The major argument assumes that the apostles did not record the Gospels objectively and thus would write down prophecies after the fact.
Pressuposing that these documents are artificial is based upon ones worldview and is not at all based upon facts.  Then once the bias is assumed fact ,they take the next step and doubt the authorship of the gospels!  The emperor has no clothes.