28 Michael A. Rudolph drawn. Even here, what is left unsaid—i.e., an expression of prayer or thanksgiving—is significant for interpretation2. In a similar manner, choices have been made in this brief introduction to raise questions in the reader’s mind: “Is there more to communication than content? What impact does the shape, or structure, of a message have upon its meaning? Will one’s understanding of that message be skewed if the consideration of how a message is shaped is not given due consideration?” And, perhaps most importantly, “If the shape of an author’s message is so critical for understanding, how does one make such an evaluation?” Halliday and Hasan offer a possible answer. They state, “A linguistic analysis of a literary text aims at explaining the interpretation and evaluation that are put upon that text. The role of linguistics is to say how and why the text means what it does to the reader or listener, and how and why he evaluates it in a certain way”3. Thus, the attraction of biblical scholars to the field of linguistics is understandable in light of its promise for their interpretive task. One will not proceed far in surveying the scholarly literature of biblical studies before encountering both the acknowledgment of this needed structural sensitivity, and yet also the failure to reach an interpretive consensus4. The contrast between modern and ancient literature highlights at least 2 G.W. Hansen, “Galatians, Letter to the,” DPL 329, who notes this variation from Paul’s custom. Although as an early Pauline letter, Paul’s custom could hardly have been established when this epistle was written, the expectations of the surrounding culture, however, were. Martin and Rose state, “[W]e learn to recognize and distinguish the typical genres of our culture, by attending to consistent patterns of meaning as we interact with others in various situations. Since patterns of meaning are relatively consistent for each genre, we can learn to predict how each situation is likely to unfold, and learn how to interact in it”. J. R. Martin and D. Rose, Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause (2d ed.; London 2007) 8. 3 M.A.K. Halliday and R. Hasan, Cohesion in English (ELS 9; Harlow, England 1976) 328. Cf., G. Brown and G. Yule, Discourse Analysis (CTL; Cambridge 1983) 94, who state, “[O]ur interpretation of what a speaker is talking about is inevitably based on how he structures what he is saying”. 4 See e.g., A. Vanhoye, Structure and Message of the Epistle to the Hebrews (SubBi 12; Rome 1989) 18, who states, “An error with regard to the literary structure is never without consequences on the interpretation of thought”. Guthrie adds, “The question presents itself: if a scholar is confused, uncertain, or incorrect in evaluating the structure of an author’s discourse, is that scholar not destined to flounder at points when presenting propositions concerning the author’s intended meanings in the various sections of that discourse? . . . Certainly an accurate assessment of a book’s structure is vital for an accurate assessment of that book’s meaning”. G.H. Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis (NovTSup 73; Leiden 1994) xvii. Yet Westfall adds, “[I]t is not apparent that the message or the structure of Hebrews has been completely understood either before Vanhoye made his initial proposal or since”. C.L. Westfall, A Discourse Analysis of the Letter to the Hebrews: The Relationship between Form and Meaning (LNTS 297; London 2005) 21.