My point: despite the persuasiveness of Sanders’s argument about the scene in the temple court, and despite the near-ubiquity of its acceptance, there are still good reasons to locate the gospels’ predictions of the temple’s destruction to the period post-70 ce. [...] There are plenty of things in Paul’s letters that the later gospels do not have, and there are plenty of things that the gospels say about Jesus that Paul does not have. But his eschatological traditions provide Paul’s strongest links to the early Jesus movement in both its pre-resurrection and post-resurrection phases. If Jesus had predicted the temple’s destruction as or at the End of the Age, and if Paul himself also speaks of such signs – including those that he insists he has by ‘the word of the Lord’ – then it is at least odd that he evinces no knowledge whatever of Jesus’ prophecy. Of course, if the original context of this prophecy is post-70, then it is not odd at all.
(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.