Sophron and Neophilus, or The School of Wisdom

in biblical history, without which the entire religion cannot exist, explained differently than has been done hitherto by all professors of Christianity, that he ought to provide irrefutable reasons, or at least overwhelming probability, for his new interpretation. Otherwise, he will never displace the common, more natural method of interpretation and, with it, the religion of Christianity, as this great change is not to be expected from mere hypotheses.

Soph. You have understood me perfectly. For tell me, how can our author harbor the hope that his explanation of the history of the resurrection—which runs counter to all the rules of interpretation observed by everyone until now—will be just as enlightening to the entire Christian world as it seems to be to him? He would have guarded himself better against the reproach of inconsistency if he had denied the authenticity of the New Testament writings entirely, rather than now, when he leaves them their historical value yet permits himself...