The First Century Void

[The Grand Nudger]

You keep repeating that but even if this was true so what? Does this gives somehow merit to Jesus historicity? Many things were not questioned until 19th century. For instance wikipedia's article on evidence for validity of historicity of King Arthur says "These modern admissions of ignorance are a relatively recent trend". So, by your logic, does that mean that King Arthur really existed because only recently people have admitted there is no evidence for his existence?

I can see your point, and agree.  But I also think it depends on the context and what is trying to be said.

Much earlier in the conversation, I was mostly having fun, with the argument from silence and why I think it is not a strong argument, and that it actually works against the mythicists as well.
Here, we are talking about the specific premise, that they targeted and removed this material because it did not contain the history of Jesus.  So I think that evidence of the mindset, or a lack of; is relevant. Inserting the mythicist position in, when it didn't show up until much later is a mistake or at least unjustified.

Also, you may keep in mind, that this is part of a conversation.  Don't assume that everything is trying to make the case towards one particular end. Discussing merits, strengths or weaknesses of one particular argument doesn't necessarily support or negate the opposing view.   It's also not black and white, but must be assessed as part of the total picture.

The mythicist position is the default when dealing with myths.  The best a person could hope for in the case of jesus is to "upgrade" from a mythicist position to a legendary position - wherein the jesus narrative was creative embellishment of some proto-character in history.  I doubt you'd be satisfied with either, but those are the only options on the table, and without evidence to support the legendary assertion of a mythical narrative...myth it will remain.