I don’t feel especially strongly about when they were written, except that late dates are often used to cast doubt on the reliability of their contents, both scholarly and popularly. Hence even Phil’s original comment that first piqued my curiosity on the topic…
So if I ask a “historical” question about the resurrection, I (and Lewis) should be completely satisfied by the “historical” answers we get from historians that reject the possibility of the miraculous?
Um, no.
As a Christian I would not accept scholarship regarding answers to questions that relate to the resurrection from scholars who reject the possibility of the miraculous, for obvious reasons. So while the dating of the gospels is certainly of less weight, why would I similarly accept similarly faulty methods when the conclusion is similarly interconnected with the question of the miraculous?
I very much appreciate your list of other considerations, and will give them due consideration when I have more time - But I nevertheless maintain a stance of skepticism: this topic has enormous potential to be tainted with a confirmation bias… If a scholar either consciously or unconsciously has already completely dismissed even the possibility of miraculous prediction, then any pre-70 AD date for the Gospels is simply and utterly impossible in their mind and will not even be considered. As such, all additional evidence or data will be interpreted through that lens.
I imagine a similar list of “other” evidence could (and has) been offered by historians that argue against a miraculous resurrection and for some alternate theory. And I’m sure that said historians would dutifully claim that all this other evidence stood on its own, they weren’t rejecting the resurrection outright simply due to its supernatural nature. But if that historian utterly rejects the concept of the miraculous, then I start with a justified skepticism in the objectivity or legitimacy of his interpretations of even the additional data… his investigation has been biased and tainted from the start, and of course he was going to come to a naturalistic conclusion when he looked at any particular datum.
So of course unbelieving secular or critical scholars will examine all the other texts and considerations you mention and conclude they all fit with a post-70AD date. But this was a foregone conclusion. Hence Lewis’s point - " Those who assume that miracles cannot happen are merely wasting their time… we know in advance what results they will find for they have begun by begging the question."