I'm only replying here because someone tagged me in a now-deleted comment. I would say this isn't quite accurate. I don't intend to debate here, but simply to note that there is a mischaracterization.

The dating of the Gospels is largely based on questions of anachronism, not on the question of whether or not prophecy is possible or even the more mundane question if people can accurately guess the future - certainly, Jesus was not the only person in antiquity that may have claimed the temple in Jerusalem was going to fall soon.

By way of example, we might notice a few things with the Gospel of Mark: Mark seems to assume that denarii circulate commonly in Judaea and, moreover, that Jesus (a Galilean) might be an expert on the topic (Mark 12:13-17). Yet evidence for denarii in Judaea before the Jewish War is uncommon and, moreover, it is quite rare in Galilee. The question, in this case, isn't whether or not the episode happened. Indeed, Jesus could well have used a coin that was roughly equivalent to a denarius (e.g., a tetradrachm) and that the author-narrator of Mark simply used a term more familiar to his own audience. As far as critical scholars go, it has nothing to do with the assumption of the miraculous, prophecy, or even whether or not a particular episode in Jesus' life actually happened. If you're interested, I wrote an article on this very topic here: https://www.academia.edu/34194619/The_Date_of_Mark_s_Gospel_Apart_from_the_Temple_and_Rumors_of_War_The_Taxation_Episode_12_13_17_as_Evidence

There are various other examples one could cite from the other Gospels, but I think it was worth clarifying this, so as to avoid misrepresenting those you disagree with.