Not To Be Confused With
Silence can be weak evidence in the right setting (where we'd strongly expect a mention), but absence of evidence is not, by itself, evidence of absence.
“The early church writers don't mention X, so the early church didn't believe X” is an argument from silence — sometimes suggestive, often overplayed. Its strength depends entirely on whether we would genuinely expect the missing evidence to exist. It cuts both ways in debates over development of doctrine.
Examples
- “The word ‘Trinity’ isn't in the Bible, so the doctrine isn't biblical” — silence about a term, not its substance.