Sophron and Neophilus, or The School of Wisdom

but the most absurd and unnatural distortions in their explanation?

Neoph. But what if the author intended his interpretative methods, which are at least not entirely impossible, specifically for those who already consider themselves convinced of the groundlessness of Christianity and the falsity of the biblical books, and who therefore have nothing left to lose in that regard? What if he presented his explanation to them merely as an exegetical text-critical hypothesis, which could be heard just as well as many others, for further investigation?

Soph. If that were his intention, I would have no objection. But that this is not his opinion, he tells you already on the first—yes, almost on every page of his book. He is not dealing with Deists those who believe in God but reject revealed religion; he is clearly dealing with Christians. These he promises to convict completely of the falsity of their faith, and this he hopes to achieve through his adventurous exegesis critical interpretation...