Beyond Guthrie?: Text-linguistics and New Testament Studies 35 understanding of Hebrews, as well as for his application of linguistic principles to biblical studies. The response of several scholars to Guthrie’s methodology has been generally positive, affirming his contribution, yet also raising significant issues31. Beyond the expected complaints regarding unfamiliar linguistic terminology and disagreements regarding Guthrie’s division of the text, they ask, for example, can an evaluation of structural boundaries be reduced to the mere mathematical exercise of noting cohesive shifts, especially if there is no consideration given for the relative value of these various fields32? Cosby also notes Guthrie’s apparent inconsistency when he affirms the importance of structural analysis in his introduction and yet is ambivalent in his conclusion, conceding that some texts are meant to be enjoyed for their beauty even if not every nuance is fully ascertained33. In contrast, however, Vanhoye, Levinsohn, and Westfall have been particularly pointed in their negative assessment of Guthrie’s study, raising several serious issues regarding both his methodology and analysis (see below). This is not to say that Guthrie’s methodology should be discarded, but as he himself suggests, 31 For exclusively positive responses to Guthrie’s work, see C.C. Newman, review of G.H. Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis, RevExp 93, no. 1 (1996) 139–41; M.L. Strauss, review of G.H. Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews: A Text- Linguistic Analysis, JETS 38, no. 3 (1995) 450–52; D.A. DeSilva, review of G.H. Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis, CBQ 57, no. 2 (1995) 395–97. For more balanced reviews, see A.H. Brehm, review of G.H. Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis, SwJT 38 (1995) 61; M.R. Cosby, review of G.H. Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis, JBL 114, no. 4 (1995) 754–55; P. Ellingworth, review of G.H. Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis, BT 46, no. 3 (1995) 349–50; M. Kent, review of G.H. Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis, AUSS 35 (1997) 274–76. 32 See e.g., Kent, review of George H. Guthrie, 275; and Westfall, Hebrews, 19–20, who states, “[T]he shifts between exposition and exhortation are already accounted for in the five categories of verbal information (verb tense, voice, mood, person and number). Similarly, the topical shifts should be accounted for in three ‘cohesion fields’ (actor, reference and lexical)”. 33 Cosby, review of George H. Guthrie, 755. In explanation, Guthrie states, “As an analogy, I enjoy the music of Mozart. I do not read a note of music and certainly do not understand how the great composer brings all the various themes together in such powerful performances; but I do not have to in order to recognize them as powerful. I can be moved even in my ignorance”. Guthrie, Structure, 147. The analogy is unfortunately ill-chosen and weak. While the genius of Mozart is comparable to the literary/oratorical skills of the author of Hebrews, his genius is not beyond analysis and a proper understanding will only enrich one’s appreciation. Similarly, the author of Hebrews, who is generally considered to be a gifted orator, would not have sought to convey an ambiguous, indiscernible message merely for its inherent beauty. See W.L. Lane, Hebrews (2 vols.; WBC 47A–B; Dallas 1991), 1:1, who states, “The writer’s rhetorical skill is universally recognized”.