Argument From Silence
What should we make of silence in historical or religious matters?
Arguments from silence (Latin argumentum ex silentio) are made in various disciplines and fields; for our purposes we will focus on arguments from silence made in terms of history or religion, and especially where history and religion intersect.
In terms of history, arguments from silence are advanced to ask why a given author, document, or place fell silent regarding a given matter. The best in historical inquiry rightly focuses on what can be positively known and demonstrated through substantive evidence: what an author says, or what concrete archaeological evidence can support. Historical arguments from silence approach subjects from the opposite direction, seeking to explore why a given idea or matter was not discussed by authors or in documents, or which prove noticeably absent from the archeological data.
In religion, arguments from silence are advanced to ask why we find very little or no mention of a given matter from religious spokespeople and/or in religious documents. As with history, so with religion: the best aspects of inquiry focus on what was explicitly discussed and for which substantive evidence can be set forth. Yet there might be times in which we can benefit from asking and considering why a given subject matter was not explicitly discussed or mentioned by religious spokespeople.
Arguments from silence are not inherently logically fallacious. The quality of arguments from silence proves dependent on the quality of the actual, substantive evidence surrounding the matter passed over in silence. Even then, an argument from silence can never be conclusive, since there may be some missing evidence or unknown extenuating factors which would well explain the silence. Arguments from silence often prove suggestive and provide opportunities for reflection and thought.
“People in the ancient Mediterranean world had no knowledge of North and South America” represents a decently robust historical argument from silence. We have many primary sources which intended to set forth the geography of the world as the ancients knew it (e.g. Strabo), and none of them mention anything resembling North or South America; we have abundant archaeological sites in the Mediterranean world, and nothing which originated from North or South America have been found there. This argument from silence has validity but can only be suggestive, not definitive or reckoned as proven: perhaps a Phoenician, Greek, or Roman ship was blown well off course and ultimately reached North or South America and somehow returned, but all evidence for it has been lost. Nevertheless, this possibility remains remote, and even if it happened, it did not leave any trace in the historical record, and so this argument from silence remains salient.
“The Israelite exodus from Egypt never happened because we have no Egyptian evidence for it” represents a far less robust historical argument from silence. While it is true no explicit evidence for any Israelite exodus has been discovered in Egypt, we cannot be so certain absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Even though Egypt comparatively presents an embarrassment of riches when it comes to evidence from antiquity, far, far more has been lost than we have discovered. The Egyptians would also have very little motivation to record any details about the Israelite exodus, and in fact every reason to want to diminish and suppress any evidence for those events which might have existed, since it proved to be a national embarrassment. While any corroborating evidence for the Israelite exodus would be welcome, the argument from silence in this case proves less suggestive.
“Musical instruments were not used in the assemblies of Christians in the New Testament, and in fact were assiduously avoided” represents a decently robust religious argument from silence. Assemblies of Christians were spoken of in many places in the New Testament; the topic of singing in the assembly is even addressed (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:1-26); and at no point did any Apostle mention or indicate the presence of any instrument. Psalms, which would have featured instrumental accompaniment in the Temple services of the First and Second Temples, were sung, with the instrument being “plucked” identified as the heart (Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16). Patristic sources provide explicit testimony to the intentional lack of musical instruments in their assemblies (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 2.4; Tertullian, Against Marcion 5.24.13; Novatian, On the Public Shows 7, Nicetas of Remesiana, On the Benefit of Psalmody 9). All of this evidence strongly suggests musical instruments were not used in early Christian assemblies, a premise which remains commonly confessed even by many in “Christendom” who presently use musical instruments in their assemblies.
“Jesus never talked about same sex sexual behavior” represents a much more tendentious and far less robust religious argument from silence. Jesus did not explicitly address or speak of same sex sexual behavior in any of the four Gospel accounts. But what conclusions should we draw from that information? Many would suggest Jesus was therefore not against same sex sexual behavior, or it did not really bother Him. Yet would this be the appropriate conclusion? By common confession, same sex sexual behavior was almost universally condemned in Second Temple Jewish culture; those who would have held firmly to the customs of Moses, including Jesus (cf. Matthew 5:17-20, would have uncritically accepted and affirmed Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, thus considering same sex sexual behavior as “detestable.” Leviticus 18:22 was one part of a greater set of sexual behaviors which were condemned in Leviticus 18:1-22; in Mark 7:21-23, Jesus spoke of the behaviors which come out of a person which defile them, and among them He included porneia, or sexually deviant behavior, which He and the Jewish people who heard Him would understand included all of the kinds of sexual behaviors described in Leviticus 18:1-22, including, but not limited to, same sex sexual behavior. That Jesus did not explicitly speak of same sex sexual behavior in any of the four Gospels might be suggestive of Jesus never having a reason to specifically address that kind of behavior; nevertheless, as it remains just as true that “Jesus never talked about incest” and “Jesus never talked about bestiality,” Jesus’ not explicitly speaking of same sex sexual behavior by no means suggests Jesus would not condemn that behavior; the evidence which does exist from the context of Second Temple Judaism and that which Jesus did explicitly address would suggest the contrary.
As we can see from the examples given above, the integrity and quality of arguments from silence have very little to do with the matter passed over in silence and much more to do with the information we do have and can know. On its own, silence means nothing: silence can neither inherently authorize or condemn, justify or refute; it is simply silence, a lack of attestation. The lack of attestation may be held in sharp relief of that which maintains significant attestation. Unfortunately, far too often, the lack of attestation provides people with opportunities to expose who they are and what kind of ideas and practices they would like to advance or supplant.
Yet all of this can only be exposed in light of the argumentation provided about what the silence might mean. We do best, therefore, when we make good and wise arguments based on the evidence which does exist. There will be times in which we should highlight how a given matter is passed over in silence, and consider and discuss why that might be the case. Sometimes a matter was passed over in silence because people did not know about it or practice it. At other times, the matter was not considered of enough significance to explicitly mention it or call it out; the reasons behind this kind of decision might be legion. We must maintain appropriate humility since we are removed from the original context in these matters, and we cannot possibly fully know or understand what people in the past were thinking or what motivated them.
But sometimes arguments from silence tell far more about those who would make those arguments than about the people or subject matter itself. Those making the arguments have their own perspectives and agendas, and sometimes their arguments will betray less than honorable motivations. But there will be other times in which arguments from silence might be made in good faith yet ultimately prove incorrect, based on incomplete or insufficient evidence. Absence of evidence does not inherently mean evidence of absence.
We do not have all evidence and all insight in matters of history or religion; therefore, there will be times in which arguments from silence will prove necessary. We do well to properly manage the evidence we do have and to humbly recognize the inherent limitations to arguments from silence. We should critically examine both the evidence and the presumptions and presuppositions involved in these arguments from silence. May we seek to glorify God in Christ in all things, and in Him obtain the resurrection of life!
Ethan R. Longhenry
The post Argument From Silence appeared first on de Verbo vitae.
