If it did, then that would surely have implications for those who suggest that the prophecy of Jesus about the temple's fall was foreseeable. I suspect other implications follow, too.
Goodman, Martin. “Diaspora Reactions to the Destruction of the Temple.” In Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways A.D. 70 to 135, edited by James D. G. Dunn, 27–38. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. p. 27The cause of such inactivity [sc. failure of diaspora Jews to aid rebels in the Judean war] was not, I suspect, indifference so much as overconfidence. Until the very last months of the war, from the spring of A. D. 70, the risk of the fall of Jerusalem, let alone the destruction of the Temple, must have seemed minimal. After all, no Roman forces came near to the walls of the city for more than three years after the resounding defeat of Cestius Gallus in October A.D. 66. The rapid siege and capture of Jerusalem may have been brought about almost entirely by the need of the new emperor Vespasian to justify to the Roman people his seizure of the purple by military force despite his humble origins; victory over foreign enemies was the surest route to prestige in Roman society. Only the pressing need for such a propaganda coup can explain the extraordinary waste of life among his own soldiers considered acceptable by Titus in subjecting the city to a direct assault on its formidable walls rather than allowing the starvation induced by his circumvallation to bring the enemy to surrender more slowly but at far less cost2.
2 For these arguments in greater detail, see further M. Goodman, The Ruling Class of Judaea: the origins of the Jewish revolt against Rome, A.D. 66—70 (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 176-97.
(Secret Alias and Stephen Goranson are not invited to respond.)