[162] to undercut the truth of faith^a. This is a tremendously important result! Let's for a moment imagine again the other alternative, the alternative that faith includes the belief in the photographic actuality of historical events. What would be the consequence? For those who have no researching mind, it doesn’t mean anything whether the solution is this or that. They simply live in myth^b and legend and don’t distinguish it from legend and history. But for those in whom the historical-critical mind has been awakened---and this should be, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, everybody who participates in academic work---a terrible split of consciousness would occur, and HAS occurred, in many people. They would have to carry the burden not only of the risk of their faith---which is a burden which you CAN carry because here your own being is involved, and you can carry it joyfully---but they have to carry another burden, namely to sacrifice the demand of scholarly honesty, which has shaped their conscience. They have to give up this conscience, this radicalism of honesty in scholarly research. This means they are driven into a split consciousness. They become schizophrenic, in the original sense of the word: split consciousness. And often they become ACTUALLY either neurotic or schizophrenic. And if not, they become indifferent, because they cannot stand the split which, if taken seriously, no one can stand. Now we should be aware of this alternative. And then, if we are, then I hope you will understand that I felt the obligation to lead you to the uttermost boundary line of historical possibility in order to make clear how the situation is within these boundary lines.