Date: Sat, 4 Apr 1998 12:30:10 +0000
From: Stevan Davies <miser17@epix.net>
To: crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com
Subject: Re: Original GThomas

Paul wrote:
>  I have found time to look at Patterson's catchword argument and I do
> find it persuasive. The only problem I found with it is saying 114 is
> considered a later addition by some and I concur with this, but logion
> 114 is joined to 113 by the catchword EICQHHTE (look). If scribal
> layering was done with knowledge of the catchwords then Patterson's
> catchword argument doesn't speak to the stratification question.

It's a statistical problem. If we have faith that there are more 
catchwords than random chance would produce, this does not
mean that any time the same word appears in two consecutive
sayings that one can infer deliberate choice on the part of the
compiler. Statistically speaking one would be entitled to discuss
the fact of catchwords in terms of the whole text, but not
in terms of any particular small section of the text.

Not to mention that there are all sorts of catchwords, e.g. "light" 
that show up here and there but not in a long "light" list. 
The bare observation that catchwords lead toward
the conclusion that Thomas came into being from remembered
sayings recalled because a word in one saying called to mind
another saying seems ok. But I think that's as far as you
can go with it. 

Steve