[168] We cannot accept the one or the other, and the reasons for this, I gave in this whole [course of lectures] and in all my books, and I am not the only one who gives these answers: the whole history of theology^a in the last 200 years has put us before this problem, and if we want to escape it, we are irresponsible to what historical destiny has given us. That is my general answer. Then we cometo [sic.] the real difficulty of the situation, and this difficulty is certainly great. It is not so easy to answer, and it needs all our good will, first of all---and I have very often experienced in these discussions the good will on the one side is very much lacking. The criticism is very easy because it is a very profound problem and a very implicit and very intricate one which needs good will in order to be answered by anybody. But if there is the good will, then I think we can come to an answer, and this answer must be that faith^b includes its own foundation. Its own foundation is an event, in which he who has faith himself, is transformed. This cannot be denied, because it is an immediate experience, but the historical way in which this event came to pass, what the name of the person was, is not a matter of the foundation of faith itself. That is a matter of historical probability. And in these two questions---"If there was no Jesus of Nazareth"---this question is very ambiguous because if it says there was NObody [sic.], then of course faith would say, "Something has HAPPENED which has its reflection in the picture of Jesus-as-the-Christ^c. But if somebody says it means just this man who MUST COME from Nazareth, then I say...must he come... [?] ...that is the tradition that comes and this tradition is very probable and very powerfully symbolic, but it is not the foundation