32 Michael A. Rudolph topic(s), conjunction, logical relationships between parts of an argument or narrative, consistency of grammatical subject, verb tense, person and number, various types of lexical repetition, consistency of reference to a main ‘actor’, or consistency of reference utilizing the same pronominal items”16. This analysis is built upon the presupposition that paragraphs evidence the highest level of cohesion, followed by paragraphs within the same embedded discourse, and then paragraphs from different embedded discourses17. In a sense, although he would of course allow for exceptions18, Guthrie is suggesting that the level of boundary is directly proportional to the disruption of cohesion, or, in other words, inversely proportional to the degree of cohesion. Specifically, he suggests a shift of four or less cohesive features would be indicative of a “low-level” boundary, a shift of five to seven features indicative of “mid-level” boundaries, while “high- level” boundaries will be marked by eight or more cohesive shifts19. Having identified potential boundaries through the analysis of cohesive shifts, Guthrie, in the second part of this step, seeks support for these findings by examining the text for the presence of inclusions. He asserts, “The inclusio was a commonly used device in ancient literary and oratorical traditions, clear examples of the device being found in both biblical and extra-biblical sources. Through use of inclusio an author marked the beginning and ending sections of a block of text by utilizing distant lexical parallels”20. The significance of this feature in Guthrie’s 16 Guthrie, “Shifts and Stitches,” 38, This list, which Guthrie suggested in his analysis of Philippians, is slightly altered from his earlier list generated in his study of Hebrews (cf., Guthrie, Structure, 50–53). The final two items represent a clarification of a more general reference in the earlier work, while the references to “temporal and spatial indicators”, utilized in his study of Hebrews, have been dropped. Unfortunately, Guthrie does not provide the raw data for his analysis beyond Heb 1:1–5a. See Guthrie, Structure, 60. Cf., Ibid, 59–75 though for his discussion. Cf., Van Neste, Cohesion and Structure, 287–315, who does provide the data for his analysis of the Pastoral Epistles. 17 Guthrie, “Shifts and Stitches,” 39; Guthrie, Structure, 54, where Guthrie references the work of Berger. Cf., Berger, Exegese des Neuen Testaments, 13, who states, “Sätze desselben Textstückes haben eine größere Kohärenz miteinander als mit Sätzen außerhalb des Stückes”. Translation: “Sentences within units of text have a greater coherence with one another than with sentences outside of the units”. 18 Guthrie, “Shifts and Stitches,” 39; Guthrie, Structure, 54. Guthrie states in both sources, “While shifts in the cohesion fields will occur throughout even the most cohesive discourse unit . . . there should be corresponding shifts in several of the cohesion fields when the discourse moves from one paragraph [or embedded discourse (found in Structure only)] to the next”. 19 Guthrie, Structure, 59. 20 Ibid, 54–55. Guthrie states, “While these parallels may involve the same elements, synonymous or complementary elements may be utilized as well. The elements forming an inclusio may reside near [emphasis Guthrie’s] the beginning or ending of a unit, rather