Beyond Guthrie?: Text-linguistics and New Testament Studies 45 inclusions becomes evident. Guthrie notes eight lexical parallels between Heb 4,14-16 and Heb 10,19-23. Although several of the items are inverted, Guthrie concludes that these two passages form “the opening and closing of a major inclusio68. On the basis of this observation, Guthrie further concludes that 4,14-16 forms an inherent unity69. He states, “This provides one reason for extending the section begun in Heb. 3,1 all the way to 4,16, even though the elements parallel with 3,1 all occur in 4,14. If 3,1 – 4,16 be considered a section and 4,14 – 10,23 be considered a section, then an overlap [emphasis Guthrie’s] presents itself”70. He later draws the same overlapping conclusion regarding 10,19-2571. Although one could hardly expect to solve the complexity of Hebrews in a few brief comments, a closer examination of Guthrie’s inclusio demonstrates its vulnerability. Of these eight lexical parallels, only four represent exact repetition (ἕχοντες οὖν, Ἰησοῦ[ν], προσερχώμεθα [. . .] μετά, παρησίαϛ/ν); with two the author changes the wording where one would have expected exact repetition (ἀρχιερέα μέγαν to ἱερέα μέγαν and κρατῶμεν τηϛ ὁμολογίαϛ to κατέχωμεν τὴν ὁμολογίαν); one is at best a parallel construction (τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ to το τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ); the last is at best a parallel movement (διεληλυθότα τοὺϛ οὐρανούϛ to διὰ τοῦ καταπετάσματοϛ)72. None of these, beyond ἔχοντεϛ οὖν, could qualify as the exact repetition of even a short phrase73. Only παρρησίαϛ and ὁμολογίαϛ appear in both passages without an intervening occurrence, but in 10,19-25 they are separated by fifty-three words and in 4,14-16 by twenty-one words. The lexical connection between these verses is clear, as well as their structural significance, the author’s intentional use of an inclusio, however, is not. Beyond a “cohesive shift,” certain features are indicative of a transition at 10,19: specifically, the use of the vocative ἀδελφοί74 and the repetition of 68 Guthrie, Structure, 80–81. 69 At least partially on this basis, Guthrie concludes that 5,1 represents a high-level transition, in this case marked by γάρ. Guthrie, Structure, 68–69. 70 Ibid, Structure, 81–82. 71 Ibid, 103–4. Cf., P.T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Hebrews (PNTC; Grand Rapids 2010), 360–61, who accepts Guthrie’s analysis. 72 He later adds a ninth lexical connection that is especially forced (εἰϛ εὔκαιρον βοήθειαν to εἰϛ τὴν εἴσοδον τῶν ἁγίων). G.H. Guthrie, “The Structure of Hebrews Revisited,” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Hebrews Consultation of the SBL, Washington, D.C., 2006) 21. 73 Guthrie is vulnerable to the same criticism he brought against Vanhoye. Guthrie states, “Vanhoye seems to err most often when he finds an inclusio built around a single word, or short phrase, the special structural function of which may be called into question”. Guthrie, Structure, 76. While Guthrie offers several single words, the criticism remains. 74 See Dorsey, The Literary Structure of the Old Testament, 22; Holmstrand, Markers and Meaning in Paul, 31; Lane, Hebrews, 2:279.