42 Michael A. Rudolph indicative of an inclusio or some related form? What designates some examples of repetition as an inclusio while others are ignored? These questions would seem to suggest the necessity of a package of linguistic signals, informing and guiding the reader from the very beginning59. While Guthrie begins from a commonly accepted definition of inclusio, his application of that definition, according to Levinsohn and Vanhoye, extends too far: allowing for repeated items to occur near rather than at the boundary, classifying contrasts as parallels (e.g., Heb 9,11-12 with 9,28), and allowing for repetition that is intermingled and separated by extended text60. In contrast to Guthrie, Harvey suggests a more restricted definition of inclusions. He states, “Inclusion is the use of the same word(s) to begin and end a discussion. Exact correspondence must be sought; synonyms and antonyms are not acceptable. This pattern is clearest when the words are used infrequently in the immediate context. The primary purpose of inclusion is to delimit discrete topics in extended discussions”61. On the basis of his study in Pauline literature, Harvey concludes that the incidence of inclusions may be less often than some have imagined62. The inherent subjectivity of this methodology is problematic for structural analysis. Noting this issue, Dorsey offers several suggestions to minimize the issue. Some of his cautions are supportive of Guthrie’s methodology and conclusions, yet overall, Guthrie is more susceptible to criticism. In particular, the priority given to inclusions in his methodology risks the charge of reductionism and his broad definition 59 Callow, Man and Message, 163. Callow states, “A message sender . . . frequently places signposts marking message progression at appropriate points, especially at the beginning of new schema units”. 60 Levinsohn, review of Guthrie, 183; Vanhoye, review of Guthrie, 589. Vanhoye states, “[U]ne inclusion ne consiste jamais en contacts verbaux dispersés sur un large espace et mêlés à d’autres contacts verbaux, comme c’est le cas dans le texte en question. En He 4,14 on a l’expression echontes oun archierea megan; pour reconstituer une expression semblable en He 10,19-21 (echontes oun . . . hierea megan), il faut sauter non moins de 27 mots entre oun et hierea”! Translation: “[A]n inclusion never consists of verbal contacts dispersed over a broad space and mingled with other verbal contacts, as is the case in the text in question. In Heb 4,14 there is the expression echontes oun archierea megan; to reconstitute a similar expression in Heb 10,19-21 (echontes oun . . . hierea megan) it is necessary to jump not less than 27 words between oun and hierea”! The issue is more complex than Vanhoye represents, but his point is valid. The repetition between Heb 10,19-25 and 4,14-16 is neither strictly exact, parallel, or chiastic. 61 Harvey, Listening to the Text, 284. Harvey does allow one exception to exact correspondence. He states, “The only exception is a nominal form of a word in one place and a cognate verbal form in the other” (103). 62 Ibid, 289. Harvey restricts his study to the seven generally accepted Pauline letters: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon (xvii).