Beyond Guthrie?: Text-linguistics and New Testament Studies 39 more specific nature of coherence when she states, “[C]oherence occurs when we can identify a unified purpose motivating the language . . . when we can identify one situation in which all the clauses of the text could occur”49. Cohesion is an important feature of discourse, but not the most important. Cohesive analysis aids in understanding the meaning of a discourse, for example by tracking topical, or referential elements, but it does not carry the meaning itself50. Thus, a cohesive analysis will at best produce an understanding of the text that is insufficiently defined and potentially out-of-focus. Although cohesion may demonstrate directionality, as noted above, it is not the cause of directionality as expressed in the text, but is a reflection of something that is: i.e., coherency. c. The Significance of Coherence The coherency of a text is shaped by extra-textual features: the context of culture and the context of situation51. It is out of this context that an author/speaker shapes his or her message. Callow, in noting both the purposive nature of humanity and the directionality associated with that purpose, states, “[I]t is frequently possible to trace a coherent path from the person’s experience and knowledge of the world, through his reactions and evaluations, to his aims and purposes. . . . [I]t is essential to bear in mind that this constant assumption of purposes is all-pervasive, and is a prior factor in any communication”52. typically get our message across to an audience. We are able to combine words into cohesive units that are understandable to a listener/reader. And when failing to do so, we typically attempt to adjust our message into a more coherent unit” [emphasis mine]. The adjustment that improves understanding, that Reed refers to here, is not an improvement of cohesion, but of coherence. 49 Eggins, Systemic Functional Linguistics, 29. Cf., Halliday and Hasan, Cohesion in English, 23. 50 Swetnam’s caution is appropriate. He states, “[A]ny real understanding of the form of a passage is bound to help in the understanding of the content. . . . But worthy as this attention to form is, there is a concomitant danger which should not be overlooked: if form is too much divorced from content it can lead to a distortion of content, not a clarification”. James Swetnam, “Form and Content in Hebrews 1-6.” Bib 53 (1972) 368–69. While Guthrie’s methodology perhaps falls between this dichotomy of strictly form and function, his failure to consider coherence, especially as traced through thematic development, demonstrates the need for further consideration of content. 51 See Eggins, Systemic Functional Linguistics, 54–112. Reed, “Discourse Analysis as New Testament Hermeneutic,” 226. 52 Callow, Man and Message, 132–33.