I’m sorry that I did not spell out some of this stuff. In particular, I should have made it clear that (on my reading, and in a sense) Wittgenstein did not think that “.. Christians should believe desperately in the resurrection story as a historical account even if they know full well that they don’t know whether it is or not.”

My guess is that many Christian believers are or would be, fully convinced that they know beyond doubt that the resurrection occurred. That they have proof, etc.  I assume that Wittgenstein would agree.

On the other hand, it seems to me that one can believe that the resurrection actually occurred, but agree with you that one could be wrong about this, that the belief is (historically) risky.

I do not know whether or not Wittgenstein would accept this ‘other hand.’

Wittgenstein did not hold that “Christians must believe in the story of the resurrection as if it were a historical event.” He did, I think, hold that at some ‘level of devoutness’ this belief is conducive to salvation – perhaps even (in some cases?) is necessary for salvation.

“Surely in the 21 century we have progressed beyond this kind of medievalism.”  Have you read any of the work of Alvin Plantinga, or Peter van Inwagen? Some of the best present day philosophers are Christians who, I suspect, believe in the resurrection (as a historical event, among other things.) In philosophy, at least, ‘this kind of medievalism’ is alive and well.