Is there a name for solving doctrinal disputes that cannot be decided on exegesis alone by surveying the positions of the Ante-Nicene Fathers?

If two mutually contradictory doctrines A and B can both be defended through careful exegesis of different sets of passages, in such a manner that there is no obvious way to "prove" (in a more formal, "mathematical" sense if you wish) which one is wrong and which one is right, is there a name for solving that dispute by surveying the literature of the Ante-Nicene Fathers in order to find evidence of broad agreement one way or the other? As a toy example, let's suppose that the dispute is between A = *"there is no resurrection"* (Sadducees) & B = *"there is a resurrection"* (Pharisees). Let's say that we make our best intellectual efforts to interpret key Old Testament passages, but after months of pondering the best arguments from both sides of the debate we're still not quite sure whether A or B is true. Then we look at what the Apostles and subsequent generations of Christians wrote (i.e. New Testament + Patristics) and realize there is widespread consensus decidedly in favor of the resurrection position. We use this broad post-OT consensus to inform our interpretation, and decide to declare B (the Pharisee position) as the winner. What would an approach like this be called, formally speaking?