A correction in classifying scholars as preterists on the Olivet Discourse

[First, apologies for the delay. It's been a few weeks.]

As mentioned explicitly earlier, almost all varieties of exegete are preterist on the Olivet in some aspects. And I say almost not because of some dispensational or extreme futuristic interpreters, but on account of a number of scholars who believe that the synoptic gospels, and most notably Luke and Matthew, may have been written after 70CE and that the material in the Olivet represents to some degree the looking forward to either a rebuilding of the temple (so some later 1st century Jewish interpreters) or a more complete desolation, as the 70CE siege did not level the temple site or the city to the degree some observers expected (cf. Davies & Allison, Matthew, which on recent rereading spurred me to provide this corrective).

All that to say that I spoke in an overly narrow manner in classifying all scholarly interpreters as preterist on the Olivet as a number of scholars have argued for a later composition date. I am not committed to either the earlier or later dates, but with a majority of major exegetes would consider at least the original form of the Olivet as dated to before 70CE.