Or especially things like this:

I’ve always thought of myself as a theologian, because what I’ve wanted to do is show how theological language works to tell us the way things are and how it shapes us to be the people we need to be to know the way things are. I want to remind us that learning how to become a creature is every bit as complex as learning what justice is. It’s a way of reminding us that theological claims are practical down to the very bone.

ZH – Why is that important?

SH – As a matter of fact, it turns out to be very important. The way disciplinary divisions work within the modern university and seminary is intellectually corrupting. For example, theologians think that students learn to read Scripture in Old Testament and New Testament courses, and therefore we theologians don’t need to use Scripture as part and parcel of the way we do our work. I try to defy that in every way I can. And I refuse to accept the assumption that you need to know all the historical, critical scholarship behind the text to know what the text means.

ZH – Say more about that in terms of the work of people such as John Crossan or Marcus Borg.

SH – Yeh, I have very little use for the Jesus Seminar. The Jesus Seminar’s idea that somehow or other through the use of historical methodologies they’re going to get to the “real Jesus” is absolutely crazy. The real Jesus is the resurrected Jesus, and the idea that somehow, since these Gospels were produced later and therefore are not newspaper accounts, and therefore they’re not getting the real Jesus, is just absolutely conceptually crazy. It’s crazy! So, I think that the Crossan- and Borg-like presumptions that they are quasi-scientists reconstructing the real Jesus that we can somehow believe in is a sign of the intellectual corruption in modernity that assumes that historians know what they’re talking about.

I don’t think historians know what they’re talking about at all.