Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998 09:51:37 -0500
From: Paul Miller <pmiller@ixlmemphis.com>
To: crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com
Subject: Re: Patterson on stratification

Mike wrote:
> First, let me say where I see the dichotomy, and you tell me if I'm
> right: you say that you "don't buy" the stratification argument from
> catchwords BECAUSE you are "persuaded that Patterson's list is not just
> random". What you seem to be saying is that one can believe either (1)
> that "Patterson's list is not random", or (2) that GTh is stratified,
> BUT NOT BOTH. If this is indeed the dichotomy you see (and only you can
> say), then I think you are mistaken. I, for one, for example, might want
> to hold BOTH (1) and (2). Why not?

 No there is no BECAUSE between those two sentences. I think that it is
very problematic to argue for or against stratification based on
catchwords. I believe (1) Patterson's list is not random and (2) GTH is
probably stratified. I qualify this with [probably] because the evidence
for or against stratification is not compelling solely on the evidence.
So many gospels are layered and Thomas being a sayings gospel making
this scribal task easy, I believe the burden of proof should fall to the
non-stratification group. Scribal layering over time was normative not
the aberration.

                                                 Paul Miller