34 Michael A. Rudolph interrelatedness (step four) and progression (step five) of each unit within the larger text will be considered. Step four, the analysis of the interrelatedness of the each unit within the larger discourse, is once more divided into four parts. At this level, Guthrie looks for the use of macro-inclusions26. Second, he looks for the repetition of key lexical terms, or closely related terms, throughout the text that form, in a sense, semantic threads weaving the text into a unified whole. Third, Guthrie identifies any transitional techniques that are used to link successive units—e.g., hooked key words and overlapping transitions27. Finally, Guthrie depicts the resulting relationship of embedded units in a diagram illustrating the overall picture of his structure28. In the fifth and final step, Guthrie analyzes the text to determine how the author progresses from unit to unit. By this Guthrie means one should note the logical or cohesive relations, as were utilized earlier at the clausal level. In addition, he reiterates the importance of considering the cohesive shifts and transitional techniques discussed in step four29. Taylor seems to add a further volitional nuance to this step when he states, “The structure of the discourse and the intentionality of the author must be evaluated in light of the whole composition30. 3. AN EVALUATION OF GUTHRIE’S METHODOLOGY a. The Response of Critics There is much in Guthrie’s work that is commendable. He has justifiably earned respect from colleagues and students for his contribution to an 26 In his analysis of Hebrews, for example, he suggests, and supports with extensive parallels, an inclusio between 4,14-16 and 10,19-23. Guthrie, Structure, 79–82. 27 Guthrie considers this “one of the most neglected aspects of structural assessments of New Testament books” (Guthrie, “Shifts and Stitches,” 41). For Guthrie’s discussion of these techniques, expanded from Parunak, see Guthrie, Structure, 94–111. Cf., H. Van Dyke Parunak, “Transitional Techniques in the Bible,” JBL 102 (1983) 525–48 and Berger, Exegese des Neuen Testaments, 13–27. Two of these techniques are particularly significant in Guthrie’s methodology: hooked key words and overlapping transitions. The remaining examples are basically variations of these two forms. Hooked key words may be defined as a key concept utilized at the boundary of one unit and throughout the adjacent unit. Thus, such a concept could serve as a concluding comment in one unit and as an important concept in the next, or as an important concept in one unit with an introductory function in the next (Guthrie, Structure, 96–102). Guthrie defines an overlapping constituent as “a passage used simultaneously as the conclusion of one block of material and the introduction of the next. . . . The two occurrences of overlapping constituents in Hebrews are found at 4,14-16 and 10,19-25, passages which also form the inclusio around the second major movement of the author’s expository material” (Ibid, 102). 28 See Guthrie, “Shifts and Stitches,” 40–41, 57. 29 Ibid. 41. 30 Taylor, The Discourse Structure of James, 44.