[168] of my faith^a, in my ultimate destiny, in life and death. So if we are a little bit willing to dissolve the ambiguity of such questions, then we are able to answer them. If we are not willing, we can never come to an answer, and then you are forced to go into the alternatives: you must say, either let us dismiss all historical research^b and let us simply take what the Bible^c says and take all the legends and myths^d literally - - - all right!--I don't mind this, but then, he who does that must be conscious that in this moment he drops the two or three hundred years of historical research^e and problems, the historical destiny of historical honesty in which we are standing. The other alternative: He says "I drop faith^f and make it a matter of probability, and Jesus is then one of the other prophets---it does not matter WHO said his words; if somebody said them, that is enough." But that is not the Christian faith either. So my answer is an attempt to avoid thse [sic.] these two impossibilities, and I personally have not even the slightest doubt that there the problem lies. I certainly have doubt about the adequacy of my formulations---EVERYbody should have---but I have no doubt about the necessity to go in this direction and to avoid the two other alternatives. That is my answer to these questions. --- And [he] who knows better, please let us know! [spoken slowly and somberly - some laughter]. LECTURE: We must now go to something else today, to a subject which is perhaps even more involved than the problem of science, and the problem of history^g, in relation to religion, namely the problem of philosophy-of-religion^h to religionⁱ.