I want to first thank my friend for calling attention to this lingering issue I have.
I have also wanted to issue a friendly challenge for some time about some of the rhetoric often on your blog about all the scholarly dupes who buy into the “mythical beast” that is Q with the reminder that scholars in many areas work with and build upon hypothetical sources all the time. Whether or not it is the most satisfactory explanation of the data, it is probably best to avoid creating a ‘strawman’ out of the scholars with whom you disagree.
I agree. Here’s the thing. I’ve tried to temper my speech in academic/serious writings against those theories I find lacking. My first draft of ]] was filled with a few barbs later removed. But, on the blog and other social media outlets, I regularly jest. While I do make fun of Q and various things, I try never to suggest something unseemingly about the actual scholars behind such theories.
On twitter, I will jab at Baptists or Catholics or Lutherans or even Methodists, United or otherwise. Not because I have any ill will towards them or think their theology bunk (well, one of them mayBe), but because it is just a fun thing to do.
But, my friend is correct. Maybe I do need to curtail some of the language, at least on blog posts, that would portray an image I do not want conveyed — that I am attacking the learned scholars who do support such theories. I like sarcasm, but in the end, it is not worth it.