Stephen, Or maybe the author of the gospel was infected with this whole eschatology by Josephus. Or maybe biblical scholars did not want to upset the generation of their masters, whom they valued and respected, and therefore did not draw too “critical” conclusions.
It doesn’t matter – you can think about it all day long.
What is intriguing – Daniel in Josphus and in Mark, Jewish Sign Prophets, ben Ananias figure and prophecy construct in both places.

Less. I did the calculation for consensus. There is reason to believe that people thought it would end badly. But no one predicted the takeover of the Temple, because then the legions would have reached Jerusalem before 66CE. It was a complete surprise when forces subordinated to the Temple and the Herodians joined the rebels.
The author of the gospel did not have to pretend to be fascinated. He took from Josephus what he valued most and what impressed him the most. A professional event report is always more interesting than the event itself.
When I read Sienkiewicz’s novel which describes the defense of Kamieniec Podolski, I fell in love with both the author and the hero of this defense. A few years later I found out what really happened. Poetry doesn’t lie and poets notoriously do.
The Gospels were written by ghost writers. Their authors did not want or could not reveal themselves. They write stories from the year 30 CE without revealing when they write or who they are. Mark doesn’t tell anyone that he’s writing in 70CE.
95% of the gospels are fabrications, as your champion Gerd says. What do you expect?
I don’t have a good connection – I got the wrong podcast episode or channel. I will try to find it when I return to Warsaw.

I think you see it the other way around. It is Goodacre who uses social engineering by repeating the “70s” thesis and only once stating that it could also be “80s or 90s”.
The problem is not the lower limit but the intuitive placement of Marek right next to it. Because not only Goodacre liked it so much.
Theißen, Der historische Jesus, 43: “Mark was composed around 70, since the Jewish-Roman war (66-74 CE) is clearly reflected in the Gospel.”
Conzelmann-Lindemann, Arbeitsbuch zum Neuen Testament (41979), 248: “The problem of the time of writing depends in a crucial way on whether one sees the destruction of Jerusalem presupposed in the apocalyptic speech of Jesus (Mk 13), or if one
assumes this is only expected in the near future. In any case, the book must [!] have originated around 70 CE, i.e., the time of the Jewish war.”
These are all interesting propositions, but they have no research significance until an upper time limit is determined that covers Josephus’s publications, if we consider the early patristics to be legit and well-dated. And since the probability distribution is flat

Most biblical scholars looked for confirmation in Josephus for the historical Jesus (TF, etc..) and confirmation of the Gospel message. A few found a source for Luke in Josephus. And why not for Mark and Matthew?

Give me a moment to think about it. For now, I propose to use what we have reached in our investigations – the probability distribution is flat throughout the entire period. Shifting Mark in time is not a problem and let’s say he was written after War and Ant by Josephus around 95 CE. There is still enough space to create all the synoptic gospels because they are not particularly long works, and about 40% of the content is the result of ordinary copy paste. Since the first gospel turned out to be a success, plagiarism only made sense if it reached the market quickly. All the gospels were simply competing with each other. Each was the one and only anonymous True Gospel of the Savior. From my perspective, this makes more sense than adding 10-15 years between the gospels. Since none of the reconstructions of the “synoptic process” exhausted all the relationships between the gospels, it is clear that the “authors” had access to their creations on an ongoing basis. If Goodacre and Mason and others claim that Luke used Josephus (Bart probably does not share this opinion), then it is worth taking a closer look at Mark for potential borrowings from War and Ant. : Jesus Ben Ananias, Danielic vision, John the Baptist, Jewish Sign Prophets,… The shift from the boring 70s CE has its undoubted advantages.

The probability distribution throughout the entire study period is flat/uniform because we have no data that could change it. We only know the beginning and end that define the time interval.
Why did plagiarism occur? Because it is a cheap offer differentiator. This is WE have the one true gospel, no one else has it. Look at Tertullian’s polemic with the late Marcion, along the lines of “my mother’s car is faster than your mother’s car.” If I took Your gospel, I would put myself at a disadvantage, especially when I am weaker than You. You could just bribe my people and that would be it. Nothing needs to be changed or synchronized. And so I have my book. And that is why these 44 gospels, dozens of letters and several apocalypses were needed.
It is impossible to solve the synoptic problem using only 3 rows of boxes without postulates such as intermediate Luke, Matthew, Mark.