(source, p. 317, 319)
What is wrong here? The Argument from Silence is considered strong by Fredriksen against the prophecy of the destruction of the temple being pre-70 CE, while the same scholar doesn't like to use the Argument from Silence (under the assumption of the totality of the seven pauline Epistles) against the historicity of Jesus. But at least the "Sanders's argument" (= the 'false witnesses' reporting in Mark 14:57-58 really what was an old Christian belief) is a strong clue that an anti-temple prophecy had to be there before the 70 CE, while in the current pauline epistles, as they stand now, it is very strange (=unexpected) the silence about the earthly details of the entity described as image of God, agent of creation, etc.