Beyond Guthrie?: Text-linguistics and New Testament Studies 33 methodology is evident, in general, by the elevation of this feature before the consideration of alternative structural devices, and more specifically, as seen in his analysis of Hebrews where he identifies eighteen such examples21 and criticizes Vanhoye for failing to note certain examples of this feature in the same text22. In part three of this step, Guthrie analyzes the text for the use of connectives, or repeated phrases. He offers as examples from his study of Hebrews: the use of γάρ “as a ‘next main point’ marker . . . [and the use of] parallel introductions at 5,1 and 8,3”23. While Guthrie alludes to conjunctions earlier as part of his cohesive shift analysis, he does not include them specifically in his analytical chart, nor do they seem to play a prominent role in his discussion24. Similarly, Guthrie finds only one other example of a parallel introduction in Hebrews (the quote of Ps 2,7 at 1,5 and 5,5). Overall, this step may not seem significant and certainly it does not carry the interpretive weight in Guthrie’s methodology as cohesive shifts or inclusions, yet it serves to alert the interpreter to account for these and other features of the text, especially the use of repeated phrases that may not serve as inclusions. In the final part of this third step, Guthrie prepares the interpreter for steps four and five. He states, “At this point in the process it is helpful to re-evaluate one’s understanding of the main point of each unit, as well as the constituent structures within each unit, based on insights from cohesion dynamics, uses of inclusio, and other discourse markers”25. In other words, one should be able to specify the main point of each paragraph unit, as defined primarily by cohesive shifts and the use of inclusions, in light of the semantic or logical relationships of their individual clauses, or groups of clauses. Armed with these summary statements, the interpreter is now prepared to analyze the macro-structure of the text where the than at the exact initiation or termination points”. Later Guthrie somewhat restricts this definition, adding, “It may be suggested that where a single word, or brief phrase, is identified as the key element utilized to close out an inclusio, there should be no intervening use of that word, or the use of that word should be uniquely complementary to the opening, serving to round off the topic under discussion” (77). 21 Ibid, 76–89. Guthrie notes that each corresponds with a “high or median-level cohesion shift” (88). 22 Ibid, 76. Guthrie states, “It is the position of this writer . . . that Vanhoye misses key uses of inclusio in Hebrews”. 23 Guthrie, “Shifts and Stitches,” 40. Cf., s.v. “γάρ,” BDAG 189, which states, “Akin to explanatory function is the use of γάρ as a narrative marker to express continuation or connection. . . . Indeed, in many instances γάρ appears to be used adverbially like our ‘now’ (in which the temporal sense gives way to signal an important point or transition)”. 24 For Guthrie’s chart, see Guthrie, Structure, 60; or Guthrie, “Shifts and Stitches,” 53. Regarding the significance of conjunctions in Guthrie’s analysis, see Westfall, Hebrews, 19. 25 Guthrie, “Shifts and Stitches,” 40.