Beyond Guthrie?: Text-linguistics and New Testament Studies 43 allows for inclusions that might not have been easily perceived. On the other hand, giving more attention to illuminating the author’s agenda (i.e., through thematic development and prominence) would serve as a control, supporting or correcting his interpretive conclusions63. When one turns to Guthrie’s “transitional techniques” (i.e., hooked key words and overlapping transitions), the issue becomes even more muddled. The first cannot be determined apart from a prior, accurate division of the text. What appears to be a hooked key word could just as easily be merely an example of a lexical span, or cohesive string if the boundaries are not accurately drawn. This is not to deny their existence, but rather to suggest that what several have offered as technically- definable, transitional structures might be better understood as a feature of information flow64. Again, as noted above, if this feature cannot be easily identified by the listener/reader through thematic development or prominence, the legitimacy of its structural significance must be questioned. The legitimacy of overlapping transitions likewise suffers from the same criticism, although this device is usually more closely linked to other indications of transition—and this is the point. In an orally/ aurally-based society, should one not expect to hear clearly the intended boundaries of transition through a multiplicity of structural indicators? Yet, at the same time, in light of thematic development and information 63 See D.A. Dorsey, The Literary Structure of the Old Testament: A Commentary on Genesis-Malachi (Grand Rapids 1999), 34–35, who states, “Objective links . . . should be given preference over subjective ones . . . includ[ing] verbatim or near-verbatim repetition and matching of place, time, characters, genre, narrative technique, speed of action, and literary form [This point is supportive of Guthrie’s methodology.]. . . . Multiple links . . . established by several different shared elements [This appears, at least initially, to support Guthrie’s proposal regarding the inclusio linking Heb 4:14–16 and 19:19–25. See Guthrie, Structure, 79–82, but also below.] . . . [or] Unique links . . . created by features that are unique to the two units and not found in the surrounding units [are to be preferred]. . . . Easily perceived links . . . that an ancient audience could have easily perceived [are] more likely than one[s] that would have been more difficult for them to catch. . . . [A] match furthering the [A]uthor’s agenda . . . is more convincing than a match having no apparent impact. . . . [One should avoid the] Danger of forcing loose ends . . . into a perceived pattern . . . [the] Danger of rearranging the text . . . to . . . fit one’s proposed structural scheme . . . [and the] Danger of reductionism . . . [i.e.,] the tendency to reduce all units to the same structural pattern—to expect, look for, and (naturally) find the same scheme over and over again”. 64 For a technical discussion of this concept, also described as periodicity, see Martin and Rose, Working with Discourse, 187–218, who describe information flow as “the way in which meanings are packaged to make it easier for us to take them in” (187). Cf., Brown and Yule’s discussion of linearisation. They state, “What a speaker or writer puts first will influence the interpretation of everything that follows. . . . [E]very sentence forms part of a developing, cumulative instruction which tells us how to construct a coherent representation”. Brown and Yule, Discourse Analysis, 133–34.