What observable data, and historical, archaeological and international observations are you referring to?Nonsense. It is observable dara that Theophilus was the “most excellent” high priest in 41 AD, which is fully consisrent with Luke’s Gospel, and a fine fit for historical, archaeological and internal observations.
There are many indications in Luke's prologue (which I believe wasn't original to it, I will admit) which places it's time of composition much later than what you maintain. Going through it verse by verse:
Here it is acknowledged that the writer of this prologue is familiar with others who have like wise attempted to compose similar narratives. He notes that it is not just one, or two, but many. Supposing a timeframe of less than ten years between the crucifixion and resurrection (if you believe such things) and the writing of Luke would mean that 1) the transmission of tradition had already spoiled by the time of Luke for him to be compelled enough to write his own text, and 2) if Luke also composed Acts of the Apostles for this same Theophilus as a companion to his Gospel at the same time then he was anticipating the figures of Theudas and the Egyptian by five years and ten years respectively.Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us
The writer's language implies that that a great deal of time has elapsed between the initial preaching of the good news to his own day. Your proposal makes it appeare hyperbolic.just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us
The question as to why Theophilus the high priest would be interested in something he would consider blasphemous must be raised. And again, the writer implies a great length of time separating himself from these purported events.it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus
This is perhaps the biggest clue that the intended receiver is not Theophilus the high priest. Nor is there any historical evidence that Theophilus converted to Christianity.that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.
The most likely scenario is that the writer is referring to Theophilus, bishop of Antioch. Other traditions hold him to be a Jew in Alexandria, which may or may not imply Mark, the founder of the Alexandrian church. But again, I hold the prologue to be a late appendage onto the text, meaning it's of no use in dating the Gospel.