In short, Patterson's critique addresses both the kernel and the rolling corpus theory, and therefor the idea that the kernel was apocalyptic (given that the rolling corpus theory is dependent on the ways in which she constructs the kernel).
[Judy:] I actually think that the notion that the Thomas community was apocalyptic determines how she constructs the kernel, but the rolling corpus works as a theory, no matter how you conceptualise the theology of the community (within reason, of course). It is an idea that she found in some work by William McKane on Jeremiah in the International Critical Commentary series.
Again, I think Patterson's critique points out some significant methodological issues with DeConick's stratification, and i would not ask for a response prior to dealing with the specifics of Patterson's critique, but I am interested to hear about the ways in which you make sense of DeConick's rolling corpus model, as I myself have been baffled by it.
Have you read her initial work on this, DeConick, April D, 'The Original 'Gospel of Thomas'', Vigiliae Christianae, 56 (2) (2002), pp. 167-199? This was the first thing that I read on this and I remember thinking when I read Recovering that it wasn’t explained as clearly as it had been in the Vig Chr article. Which possibly isn’t particularly helpful to you, of course. It made a great deal of sense to me as I was reading it, but it’s quite a few years now since I read it.
I now have Patterson’s article and am part way through it but about to stop for the night. I think it is unfortunate that he chose the parable of the mustard seed as his example because it is an oddity in the parables of the Kingdom in Thomas. All the other Kingdom parables say that the Kingdom is like a person – the mustard seed says the Kindom is like an object – the seed. I therefore think that it needs to be considered differently to the others, so the fact that it doesn’t fit doesn’t prove a great deal.