The Spiral Argument Argument

[Contarini]

Even more of a headache is the idea that the Gospels floated around as stories (pericopes) before they were assembled into their current forms by the various authors, getting translated and retranslated in their publication, a process that ended very early but was still there. That would account for the end of Mark and the story of the woman getting stoned.

I don’t know what you mean by “translated and retranslated.” I’m always baffled by the way people use the word “translated” apparently to mean things other than translation from one language to another.

There was presumably some translation from Aramaic–certainly there are many Aramaisms in parts of the Gospels.

But I don’t know about “retranslation.”

Also, Bauckham questions how much of this floating around of pericopes really happened. His big, simple idea is that the timescale of standard critical dating of the Gospels (obviously this becomes much truer if some of the conservative revisionist views about the early dates of the Gospels that have been mentioned are true) doesn’t allow for a long process of anonymous community retelling. Now he may be overstating this–clearly people can tell and retell stories within a period of a few years. But Bauckham points out that ancient historians normally were expected to seek out and interview eyewitnesses, and he presents what I personally find a convincing case that the Gospels are directly based on such testimony.

Again, I think Matthew may be the exception. As Randy says, 70% of Matthew is non-original. It’s primarily a revision of material already out there. The question is: what about the material peculiar to Matthew?

Now maybe there’s a solid case that this too is based on eyewitness testimony. But I think so far it’s the most questionable material (other than the Johannine speeches–but speeches in general in ancient sources are almost never going to be word for word transcriptions).

Edwin

 

[Abu]

Randy Carson #312
Abu-
Just a thought…what if Matthew and Luke ARE the copies of Q that Dom Orchard says are missing?

I offer the conclusions of those Catholic scholars who have studied the subject.

“The biggest problem with Markan priority is that it depends on the existence of Q, but no such document ever has been found, nor has any ancient reference to it ever been uncovered. No one seemed to have known about it until modern scholars deduced its existence as being necessary for the theory of Markan priority to work at all.

“Another problem for Markan priority has been the motives of some of its advocates, especially early ones. Many of them argued for the theory precisely because Mark’s Gospel has the fewest miracles and because they had an anti-miraculist bent. If Mark wrote first and Matthew and Luke later, these scholars could argue that the latter two intruded pious but false stories into the narrative.”
Karl Keating: catholic.com/magazine/articles/a-question-of-priority

And Dom Bernard Orchard states:
“Lk’s divergences from Mt in his Q passges are nearly always towards typical Lucan style or otherwise apparently less primitive than their equivalent in Mt.

“On the whole, we may conclude that Lk’s direct dependence on Mt in the Q passages is one which not only explains but is required by the evidence, and the conjectural Q document is therefore an unnecessary and undesirable hypothesis.”
Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, 1953, The Synoptic Problem, The So-called Q Passages, p 762].

icamhif #313
How is Markan priority and the Two-Source hypothesis a “challenge” to any Catholic doctrine?

See #100:
The reality is that:
Pope St. Pius X made the rulings of the Commission a part of the Magisterium, the supreme teaching authority of the Church. This extension of the Magisterium was later removed after the Second Vatican Council. Cardinal Ratzinger writes: "The Pontifical Biblical Commission, in its new form after the Second Vatican Council, is not an organ of the teaching office, but rather a commission of scholars …"5 In other words, Pope St. Pius X made the Commission an organ and that organ taught us, publishing its decrees in the A.A.S. Its promulgated decrees were and remain to this day ordinary Magisterial teaching. But after Vatican II the PBC no longer enjoyed this authority.
Note
5. Preface to The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Pontifical Biblical Commission, 1993.
[LT94 - Rediscovering the Decrees of the Pontifical Biblical Commission]](LT94 - Rediscovering the Decrees of the Pontifical Biblical Commission]) [My emphasis].

See #199:
“…the Pontifical Biblical Commission was formally established by Pope Leo XIII in 1902, and in 1907, in Praestantia Sacrae Scripturae, Pope Pius X declared its decisions to be binding.”

The Commission teaches:
**8) On the Author, Date of Composition, and Historical Truth of the Gospel According to St. Matthew, 1911.
Matthew, the Commission said, is in truth the author of the Gospel published under his name. The Gospel was originally written in Hebrew, sometime before the destruction of Jerusalem. **We cannot accept the idea that the book was merely a collection of sayings compiled by an anonymous author. While the book was first written in Hebrew, **the Greek is regarded as canonical, and is to be regarded as historically true, including the infancy narratives, and passages relating to the primacy of Peter (16:17-19) and to the Apostles’ profession of faith in the divinity of Christ (14:33). **[My emphases].

So the teaching here is part of our Catholic Magisterial doctrine.

 

[icamhif]

I have been following along here (and although I don’t have much to add at this point), I just wanted to encourage the conversation — it is interesting.

 

[icamhif]

icamhif #313
How is Markan priority and the Two-Source hypothesis a “challenge” to any Catholic doctrine?

Are any of these quotes from the official Vatican website?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Are any of these quotes from the official Vatican website?

These 2 are:

w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2013/documents/papa-francesco_20130911_eugenio-scalfari.html

It is necessary, therefore, to look at Jesus from the point of view of the actual circumstances of his existence, as narrated by the oldest of the Gospels, Saint Mark. There, the “scandal” in others, provoked by the words and actions of Jesus, stems from his extraordinary “authority”. This word, present already in the Gospel of Saint Mark, is not easy to translate accurately in Italian. The Greek word is “exousia”, which etymologically refers to that which “comes from being”, from whom one is. It is not something external or imposed, but rather that which comes from within and is self-evident. Jesus, in fact, impacts us, shocks us, and renews us, and this comes, as he himself says, from his relationship with God, whom he refers to intimately as “Abba”, the Father, who confers this “authority” upon him so that he may offer it for humanity’s sake.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030510_ratzinger-comm-bible_en.html

The second name which appears is more familiar to me, that of Fritz Tillmann, the editor of a Commentary on the New Testament labelled as unacceptable. In this work, the author of the comment on the Synoptics was Friedrich Wilhelm Maier, a friend of Tillmann, at the time a qualified lecturer in Strasbourg. The decree of the Concistorial Congregation established that these comments expungenda omnino esse ab institutione clericorum. The Commentary, of which I found a forgotten copy when I was a student in the Minor Seminary of Traunstein, had to be banned and withdrawn from sale since, with regard to the Synoptic question, Maier sustained the so-called two-source theory, accepted today by almost everyone.

Maybe they will take their disagreement with Pope Francis

 

[benhur]

Actually yes [formal] heresy–obstinate denial of the truth–is a sin. Wrong opinion, per se, is not.

Edwin

Thanks, that is what I thought. Maybe Abu was saying more wrong opinion is allowed in P’s magisteriums. I think I was trying to say some value more the need for personal conviction on a matter, that we can be fully convinced on a matter, to believe something because we have come to believe it, and not because we are supposed to believe it. That is, “following” is only good to a point, or at least following blindly or without understanding. Like we do have a magisterium, a church, Scriptures , but we also have Christ, the Holy Spirit that teaches us thru all things,a dynamic whose balance is critical.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

And that’s what I’ve said consistently. But the nature of the differences from his source material, particularly Mark, seems to indicate a tendency to elaborate theological points where Mark has more cryptic stories. There are also the odd little stories found nowhere else, which scholars as conservative as Licona and Blomberg think may not be literal narratives (the dead rising at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion, in Licona’s case; the fish with the coin in its mouth, in Blomberg’s).

This may be an aside, but it seems like much of your argument is predicated on Markan priority.

I’ve come to be convinced of the (modified) Griesbach hypothesis, instead, which advocates the more traditional order of Matthew, Luke, Mark, John (of course, Luke and Mark may be nearly contemporaneous, and thus the order we find in some histories).

A great overview is found here, and especially here.

This hypothesis frees us of the many problems inherent in “the synoptic problem”.

 

[Abu]

Yes, FathersKnowBest. Here is Scripture Scholar Fr John Echert’s comment:
**Answer by Fr. John Echert on 02-10-2004 (EWTN): **
‘I have to confess, I have yet to meet or read the work of a scholar who subscribes to Markan priority, who does not adopt or favor, as well, the popular “two-source” theory. While there certainly must be exceptions, they are not well known, and are not widely published. On earlier posts on this topic, I have explained the meaning of “Q,” but it is also the popular position that the “source” represented by this construct was likely a single source or collection, whatever its designation. But beyond this, I would like to know the basis by which modern scholars of the two-source theory—or “Q” view–justify the contradiction of all ancient witnesses, as to the apostolic, eye-witness sources of the Gospels, namely, the four Evangelists. It is, in fact, a package deal; that is, Markan priority typically includes “Q” and the assumption that the four Gospels were not written by the traditional Evangelists, but much later, by subsequent generations. And herein lies the motive of some who make such a claim, namely, the latitude to suggest that innovations and changes crept into the texts, such that the Gospels are not historically reliable, and do not record what our Lord said and did, but what later writers claimed.’
tinyurl.com/mxpvord

 

[icamhif]

This may be an aside, but it seems like much of your argument is predicated on Markan priority.

I’ve come to be convinced of the (modified) Griesbach hypothesis, instead, which advocates the more traditional order of Matthew, Luke, Mark, John (of course, Luke and Mark may be nearly contemporaneous, and thus the order we find in some histories).

A great overview is found here, and especially here.

This hypothesis frees us of the many problems inherent in “the synoptic problem”.

I don’t see any theological problem with the two-source hypothesis. Does the Catholic Church believe that this somehow undermines the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture?

 

[icamhif]

Yes, FathersKnowBest. Here is Scripture Scholar Fr John Echert’s comment:
**Answer by Fr. John Echert on 02-10-2004 (EWTN): **
‘I have to confess, I have yet to meet or read the work of a scholar who subscribes to Markan priority, who does not adopt or favor, as well, the popular “two-source” theory. While there certainly must be exceptions, they are not well known, and are not widely published. On earlier posts on this topic, I have explained the meaning of “Q,” but it is also the popular position that the “source” represented by this construct was likely a single source or collection, whatever its designation. But beyond this, I would like to know the basis by which modern scholars of the two-source theory—or “Q” view–justify the contradiction of all ancient witnesses, as to the apostolic, eye-witness sources of the Gospels, namely, the four Evangelists. It is, in fact, a package deal; that is, Markan priority typically includes “Q” and the assumption that the four Gospels were not written by the traditional Evangelists, but much later, by subsequent generations. And herein lies the motive of some who make such a claim, namely, the latitude to suggest that innovations and changes crept into the texts, such that the Gospels are not historically reliable, and do not record what our Lord said and did, but what later writers claimed.’
tinyurl.com/mxpvord

Excuse me if this is a stupid question, but how does the two source hypothesis inevitably lead to the conclusion that Matthew was not the true author of Matthew? Also, even if Matthew was not the true author, how does that somehow prove that the book of Matthew is not inspired?

 

[Tomyris]

Excuse me if this is a stupid question, but how does the two source hypothesis inevitably lead to the conclusion that Matthew was not the true author of Matthew? Also, even if Matthew was not the true author, how does that somehow prove that the book of Matthew is not inspired?

I think the assumption is that two sources implies two authors, only one of whom could be Matthew. If so, then the other one must NOT be Matthew, which means Matthew must not have written Matthew.

If Q was apostolic, how did Matthew, Mark and Luke all hold the pen at the same time and write? Or did they take turns? It’s more likely they wrote out of common knowledge, memory and experiences and that is the ‘common source’, not an undocumented document by an unknown that the apostles thought was so good that they plagiarized his work. .

There is no early church attestation to a Q document. What we have are people saying the apostles wrote the Gospels, meaning the Gospels, therefore, are apostolic.

 

[Tomyris]

I don’t know what you mean by “translated and retranslated.” I’m always baffled by the way people use the word “translated” apparently to mean things other than translation from one language to another.

There was presumably some translation from Aramaic–certainly there are many Aramaisms in parts of the Gospels.

But I don’t know about “retranslation.”

Let me retranslate.

I meant something like ‘translate the Aramaic into Greek, and then someone takes the translated Greek and translates it BACK into Aramaic.’

 

[Abu]

icamhif #127
…how does the two source hypothesis inevitably lead to the conclusion that Matthew was not the true author of Matthew? Also, even if Matthew was not the true author, how does that somehow prove that the book of Matthew is not inspired?

Why not ask Fr John Echert to answer your queries about what he wrote? Exactly what Fr Echert wrote is suggested in this thread re Matthew – “the latitude to suggest that innovations and changes crept into the texts, such that the Gospels are not historically reliable, and do not record what our Lord said and did, but what later writers claimed.”

Fr William G Most in considers the theory in *Did St. Luke Imitate the Septuagint?. *In 1943, Sparks quickly disposed of the theory of direct translation from Semitic, saying that such a theory “is ruled out of court” 9 by the Two Source Theory, which he then considered solidly proved. However, later on, in 1951, he spoke differently: "For myself, I am not wedded to orthodox Synoptic criticism"10. Sparks showed foresight and prudent judgement; at present the number of attacks on the Two Source Theory is multiplying11. [My bold].
Note:
11 Cf. W.R. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem, Dillsboro, NC, 1976; Bernard Orchard, Matthew Luke and Mark, Manchester, 1977; E.P. Sanders, The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition, Cambridge, 1969; T.R. Rosche, “The Words of Jesus and the Future of the ‘Q’ Hypothesis” in JBL 79 (1960) 210-20; Sanders, “The Argument from Order and Relationship between Matthew and Luke” in NTS 15 (1968-69) 249-61; O.L. Cope, Matthew, A Scribe Trained for the Kingdom of Heaven in CBQ Monograph Series 5, 1976, esp. p. 12: John M. Rist, On the Independence of Matthew and Mark, Cambridge, 1978; Hans-Herbert Stoldt, History and Criticism of the Marcan Hypothesis, tr. D.L. Niewyk, Macon and Edinburgh, 1980.
catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=221

 

[icamhif]

I think the assumption is that two sources implies two authors, only one of whom could be Matthew. If so, then the other one must NOT be Matthew, which means Matthew must not have written Matthew.

If Q was apostolic, how did Matthew, Mark and Luke all hold the pen at the same time and write? Or did they take turns? It’s more likely they wrote out of common knowledge, memory and experiences and that is the ‘common source’, not an undocumented document by an unknown that the apostles thought was so good that they plagiarized his work. .

There is no early church attestation to a Q document. What we have are people saying the apostles wrote the Gospels, meaning the Gospels, therefore, are apostolic.

Yes, that is a reasonable explanation.

 

[icamhif]

Why not ask Fr John Echert to answer your queries about what he wrote? Exactly what Fr Echert wrote is suggested in this thread re Matthew – “the latitude to suggest that innovations and changes crept into the texts, such that the Gospels are not historically reliable, and do not record what our Lord said and did, but what later writers claimed.”

Fr William G Most in considers the theory in *Did St. Luke Imitate the Septuagint?. *In 1943, Sparks quickly disposed of the theory of direct translation from Semitic, saying that such a theory “is ruled out of court” 9 by the Two Source Theory, which he then considered solidly proved. However, later on, in 1951, he spoke differently: "For myself, I am not wedded to orthodox Synoptic criticism"10. Sparks showed foresight and prudent judgement; at present the number of attacks on the Two Source Theory is multiplying11. [My bold].
Note:
11 Cf. W.R. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem, Dillsboro, NC, 1976; Bernard Orchard, Matthew Luke and Mark, Manchester, 1977; E.P. Sanders, The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition, Cambridge, 1969; T.R. Rosche, “The Words of Jesus and the Future of the ‘Q’ Hypothesis” in JBL 79 (1960) 210-20; Sanders, “The Argument from Order and Relationship between Matthew and Luke” in NTS 15 (1968-69) 249-61; O.L. Cope, Matthew, A Scribe Trained for the Kingdom of Heaven in CBQ Monograph Series 5, 1976, esp. p. 12: John M. Rist, On the Independence of Matthew and Mark, Cambridge, 1978; Hans-Herbert Stoldt, History and Criticism of the Marcan Hypothesis, tr. D.L. Niewyk, Macon and Edinburgh, 1980.
catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=221

Even if Matthew didn’t write Matthew, so what? That doesn’t prove that later writers wrote what Christ didn’t teach. A disciple of Matthew (or of another Apostle) could have wrote it under the Apostles’ guidance. They could also have gotten their info from the prevalent oral attestations from the earliest Christians. The Catholic Church believes that Oral Traditions are just as inspired and reliable as the Written Traditions, so why are Fr. Williams and others so worked-up about refuting this almost-universally agreed upon scholarly theory?

 

[icamhif]

Even if Matthew didn’t write Matthew, so what? That doesn’t prove that later writers wrote what Christ didn’t teach. A disciple of Matthew (or of another Apostle) could have wrote it under the Apostles’ guidance. They could also have gotten their info from the prevalent oral attestations from the earliest Christians. The Catholic Church believes that Oral Traditions are just as inspired and reliable as the Written Traditions, so why are Fr. Williams and others so worked-up about refuting this almost-universally agreed upon scholarly theory?

Is it that one cannot believe in the two-source hypothesis without breaking communion from the Catholic Church?

 

[Abu]

icamhif #332
Even if Matthew didn’t write Matthew, so what?

Such a supposition also holds up to question Vatican II’s *Dei Verbum *#18: “The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold that the four Gospels are of apostolic origin. For what the Apostles preached in fulfillment of the commission of Christ, afterwards they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed on to us in writing: the foundation of faith, namely, the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.”

why are Fr. Williams and others so worked-up about refuting this almost-universally agreed upon scholarly theory?

Apart from the fact that the quotation was from Fr William Most, which “scholars” assent to the dogma and doctrine of the Catholic Church, especially the reality in Matthew, disputed by those here holding up to question that Jesus founded and gave His Church His authority to teach?
As follows:
**All four promises to Peter alone: **
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve].

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).
Jesus warned dissenters: “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17).

St. Paul says also, “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10).” The Church teaches even the angels! This is with the authority of Christ!

That is the crux of their problem – refuting what the Catholic Church teaches in Her Sacred Scriptures – why follow them?

 

[icamhif]

Such a supposition also holds up to question Vatican II’s *Dei Verbum *#18: “The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold that the four Gospels are of apostolic origin. For what the Apostles preached in fulfillment of the commission of Christ, afterwards they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed on to us in writing: the foundation of faith, namely, the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.”
Apart from the fact that the quotation was from Fr William Most, which “scholars” assent to the dogma and doctrine of the Catholic Church, especially the reality in Matthew, disputed by those here holding up to question that Jesus founded and gave His Church His authority to teach?
As follows:
**All four promises to Peter alone: **
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve].

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).
Jesus warned dissenters: “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17).

St. Paul says also, “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10).” The Church teaches even the angels! This is with the authority of Christ!

That is the crux of their problem – refuting what the Catholic Church teaches in Her Sacred Scriptures – why follow them?

Okay. So just to make sure, does one have to reject the two-source hypothesis in order to be Catholic?

 

[Abu]

icamhif #335
Okay. So just to make sure, does one have to reject the two-source hypothesis in order to be Catholic?

Not at this stage as the subject of the illusory “Q” is questioned with reference to Cardinal Ratzinger’s remarks, and answered here in 2008 by Scripture Scholar Fr John Echert.

tinyurl.com/n3ead96
**‘Gospel Dating and Two-Source Theory (EWTN)
Question from Peter D Howard on 03-10-2008: **
On the 100th anniversary of the Pontifical Biblical Commission (2002) Cardinal Ratzinger in his address said: “Maier sustained the so-called two-source theory, accepted today by almost everyone.”
“At the time, this also brought Tillmann’s and Maier’s scientific career to an end. Both, however, were given the option of changing theological disciplines.” [Relationship between Magisterium and exegetes]](Relationship between Magisterium and exegetes])

‘With regard to the work of Tresmontant, Fr Carmignac and others, that Matthew was written first and early, versus the Two Source Theory, and the quotes from Cardinal Ratzinger re Maier, and that the two source theory is accepted today by almost everyone, what is the Church’s authoritative teaching on this question of dating, and which is the first Gospel?’

‘Answer by Fr. John Echert on 03-16-2008:
There is no definitive teaching on the Church in this matter. There is the ancient tradition which is strong that Saint Matthew was the first Gospel (written originally in the Hebrew dialect but canonical form is Greek) and there is the popular modern view that Saint Mark was first (an idea that originated out of modern Protestant speculation). I personally accept the ancient tradition and have argued vigorously for this, not only because of tradition but because of serious flaws in the modern two-source theory. Among other things, there is no known “Q” type document upon which this theory depends and some of the principles which allegedly support this modern view (e.g. that shorter is earlier) fall apart, upon close examination (for instance, most pericopes or accounts in the Gospel of Saint Matthew are shorter or more simple than those of Saint Mark). [My emphasis].
Thanks, Peter
Father Echert

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well, this thread has lost its steam, and I’ve lost interest in continuing the debate. I’ve been reading a bunch of books I ordered by Craig Blomberg, Gary Habermas, Mike Licona, William Lane Craig and J. Warner Wallace. If you want to read just one, go with Cold Case Christianity by Wallace as a good starting point. These authors argue persuasively, IMO, against the ideas advanced by individuals such as Bart Ehrman as well as the Jesus Seminar - ideas I have heard echoed in this thread.

In conclusion, I want to say that Catholics do NOT need the Spiral Argument. In my opinion, it is a tool that we can use to help our non-Catholic brothers and sisters to understand why we can be confident that the Bible is inspired. because the living body of Christ, the Church built by Jesus, tells us it is so.

Fr. Adrian Fortescue explained this approach to apologetics over a century ago:

"The [Catholic] position is this: there are two kinds of proofs for any dogma. The main proof, the most efficient in any way, the proof that is the real motive for every Catholic, is simply that this dogma is taught now by the Church of Christ, that Christ has given to his Church his own authority, so that we can trust the Church as we trust Christ himself. “Who heareth you, heareth me” (Luke 10:16). The argument is the same for every dogma (that is why the Catholic position is essentially simple, in spite of apparent complexity); it can be understood by the most ignorant, as the religion of Christ must be (it is impossible for every child and peasant to make up his own Christianity for himself by his interpretation of Scripture or the Fathers…). This position admits no vagaries of private judgment for each dogma. No variety of interpretation is possible as to what the Catholic Church of today teaches, or, if such misunderstanding should occur, the Church is there to declare her mind. Even the most fundamental dogmas rest ultimately on the teaching of the Catholic Church today, even, for instance, that of the Holy Trinity. All we suppose, before we come to the Church, is that our Lord Jesus Christ was a man sent by God and whom we must follow if we wish to serve God in the proper way; that he founded one visible Church, to which his followers should belong; that this Church is, as a matter of historic fact, the communion of Rome (not, however, supposing anything about the papacy, but supposing only visible unity and historic continuity). This much must be presupposed and therefore does not rest on the authority of the Church. All else does.

“But there is another kind of argument for each dogma, taking each separately and proving that this was taught by Christ and has been believed from the beginning. This line of argument is neither so convincing nor so safe. It does now involve our private judgment as to whether the ancient texts do, or do not, really prove what we claim. It requires knowledge of the texts, of dead languages; to be efficient it requires considerable scholarship. It is impossible that our Lord should give us a religion requiring all this before you know what it is. This direct proof of each dogma can be only confirmation of the general argument for all, taken from the present teaching of the Church. But it is a most valuable confirmation, which we are always ready to offer, as long as it is understood that it is not the main reason of our belief. I am quite sure that Matthew 16:18 and the Church Fathers Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Chrysostom and Augustine all say what I believe about the Bishop of Rome. But I do not base my faith on what they say; I do not really care a jot whether convenire ad means “agree with” or “to go”. I base my faith on what the Catholic Church of today says. That alone is quite enough for all of us; in this we have an argument perfectly clear, convincing, final, the same for the student of patrology as for a peasant who can neither read nor write” (Adrian Fortescue, The Early Papacy to the Synod of Chalcedon in 451, [San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 2008], 26-27).