Beyond Guthrie?: Text-linguistics and New Testament Studies 41 of transition. This expectation is not unreasonable in either an ancient or modern text, even if the nature of the transitional signal may vary. Callow states, “A message sender tries to build up in a recipient’s mind a replica of the message already existing in his own. This conceptual replica must have all its parts rightly related to each other, so the speaker makes efforts to ensure that each new part fits readily into the partially completed structure already in place”56. d. The Identification of Transitional Markers If therefore cohesive analysis is an imprecise methodology to divide the text, and yet, if this division of the text is also necessary to understand thematic development, what recourse does the interpreter have? Is the identification of inclusions and various configurations of hooked key words and overlapping transitions, utilized by Guthrie to confirm the structural boundaries his cohesive analysis first suggested to him, adequate for this purpose? Certainly the use of inclusions as a structural marker in ancient literature is clearly established57. Yet, when one surveys the literature of biblical studies, the modern definitions seem somewhat inadequate. If an inclusio is to be defined as the repetition of key terms marking the beginning and ending of a unit58, how precise or extensive must that repetition be? Are synonymous expressions allowable, or only precise repetition? Is one word sufficient, or must there be a full phrase, or sentence? What is to distinguish that repetition from the repetition of a parallel introduction or conclusion other than the interpreter’s prior judgment regarding the placement of the boundary? Furthermore, if an inclusio is not apparent until the closing, self-identifying phrase, what has guided the reader/listener previously to this point? Is every repetition 56 Callow, Man and Message, 163. Cf., 149–64. Callow, in noting both the linear and hierarchical nature of communication, states, “[A]s each new part of the message is transmitted it is not added on to the end of a string, but rather takes its place in a complex interrelated structure. . . . [I]t has a place in successive higher-level units and stands in some kind of meaningful relation to those units, not simply to the parts of the message on either side of it. . . . The context provided by the message, even in its incomplete state, has roused in the hearer certain expectations as to how the message is going to develop and be completed. It is in terms of these expectations that the hearer absorbs each new element in the unfolding message” (151). In contrast to Guthrie’s “Cohesive Shift Analysis,” Callow’s description is undoubtedly a more accurate reflection of how people actually send and receive communication. 57 For a recent study of the ancient use of inclusions, including an analysis of the use of inclusions in the undisputed Pauline letters, see J.D. Harvey, Listening to the Text: Oral Patterning in Paul’s Letters (ETSS; Grand Rapids 1998). 58 Guthrie, Structure, 54–55. In addition, Guthrie states, “While these parallels may involve the same elements, synonymous or complementary elements may be utilized as well”.