[166] LECTURE XV, Tues., Nov. 22, 1955 QN: Once historical probability is established, what relation can that which has been so established have to religion or faith? PT: Yes, now this leads into a very large and difficult discussion about the indirect importance of historical research ^afor our whole understanding of religion. There is indeed an INDIRECT influence, indirect insofar as the whole cultural climate is determined by our understanding of our past, and if, for instance, we know something about the way in whcih [sic.] dogma^b has come into existence by those who have given us insight into the history of the Christian doctrine, then this does not have DIRECT influence on faith, i^ct is not the BASIS of faith, but it has indirect influence insofar as we see the problem of the past, the influences of politics, of economics, of religious personalities and their special psychological types on the development of a dogma,^d or of the development of the biblical writings. Now all this is of great importance from the point of view of our general picture of the history of the world, as for instance the scientific result are indirectly important for the understanding of our picture of the natural reality. But neither the one nor the other can become an immediate foundation of faith, nor is even SUPPOSED to become. So historical probability, like ALL historical work, has, like all SCIENTIFIC work, an indirect influence on our relationship to reality. But we never can say it is the foundation of faith, so that if science or history made these statements, faith is either threatened or concerned---this is the thesis I want to state here. QN: Is not the concept of Jesus as the final revelation based upon the historicity of Jesus? If so, does not this make theology^e dependent on historical validity?