Based on post-2000 scholarly research, how do Christians defend that it was Jesus himself who prophesied the first Jewish-Roman war?

It's a common assertion by liberal Bible scholars that rather than *Jesus himself* who [prophesied the destruction of the temple in AD 70](https://www.gotquestions.org/AD-70.html) along with the ensuing wars and sufferings, it was the *Gospel authors* who "after the fact" (post AD 70) made Jesus predicted these indisputable historical facts (the [First Jewish-Roman war](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Jewish%E2%80%93Roman_War) , AD 66-73) in the gospel narratives. What are the recent (post-2000) scholarly arguments to refute this, or at least to shift the balance of academic probability toward the traditional assertion that although the gospel narratives could have been written post AD-70, but the kernel of the sayings were *really* coming from Jesus's own mouth? I request respectfully - that the answer **does not use the inerrancy doctrine** (not that there is anything wrong with it), but rather use various textual, narrative, and historical criticism as well as external sources (cultural, other histories, archeology, etc.). - that the answer **does not *merely* use generalized arguments** that target a liberal assertion that most purported fulfilled prophecies are not really prophecies because the record was always written after the fact.