This is one reason why we should be cautious about locating this Gospel in Galilee.We would expect a Galilean Matthew who lived through the horrors of the conflict to have referenced it in more detail in his Gospel.If you want to get a feeling for these arguments, you should pick up a detailed commentary on each of the gospels and consider carefully the arguments of the authors.A good commentary will present more than one theory and the evidence for the different dates of authorship.It is also believed that John lived significantly longer than the other gospel writers.
But even if we assume that this is a direct allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem, the question remains as to why the evangelist referred to this calamitous event in such an indirect way and why there are no further mentions of it in the Gospel.
One answer is perhaps tied up with the Gospel’s location.
If Matthew was written in Antioch or another location that was well away from the war zone, then we can understand the evangelist’s lack of specific focus on the Jewish war and the destruction of Jerusalem.
Is there any evidence this parable was added to a pre-70 C. This leaves the reference to the destruction of the city in the parable of the wedding feast as the final piece of evidence for dating Matthew after the Jewish War.
Secondly, the Gospel of Matthew has a developed Christology, which suggests a late date towards the end of the first century.