44 Michael A. Rudolph flow, should there not also be the overlap of semantic elements? One should not confuse the one for the other65. Has the interpreter thus exhausted all of the linguistic tools available for analysis? Certainly not. It is reasonable to suggest that the biblical writers of the New Testament, as all ancient writers in an orally/aurally- based, first-century, Hellenistic society, chose from a wide spectrum of linguistic signals. Scholars have identified several transitional markers that may guide the modern interpreter: e.g., metacommunicative clauses, the use of various phrases and clauses to announce topics, or provide summaries, the role of intersentential conjunctions and particles, the use of prominence, to name but a few66. While space will not allow for an extensive discussion of these features, a brief illustration of their use in Hebrews, where they may be compared with Guthrie’s analysis, may be informative. 4. AN EXAMINATION OF GUTHRIE’S METHODOLOGICAL APPLICATION On the basis of his cohesive shift analysis, Guthrie concludes that Heb 10:19 represents a high-level transition67. It is here, however, that Guthrie’s methodology betrays him. His preference for, and broad definition of, 65 This seems especially to be the mistake of Longenecker, who, in overstating the significance of two ancient quotes, suggests a technical transitional device, the “chain-link construction”, similar to Guthrie’s hooked key words and overlapping transitions, and further proposes several uses of it in the New Testament. B.W. Longenecker, Rhetoric at the Boundaries: The Art and Theology of New Testament Chain-Link Transitions (Waco, Tex. 2005). Cf., Lucian, How to Write History, 6.55 (K. Kilburn, LCL); and Quintilian, Institutio oratoria, 9.129 (H. E. Butler, LCL). These texts demand nothing more than the characteristic of information flow suggested here. A “boundary” excessively blurred by overlap ceases to be heard as a boundary and may instead have been misunderstood or misidentified by the modern interpreter, while two units thus linked reflect merely the coherent development and textual cohesiveness of the author’s message. 66 For a discussion of various transitional markers, see Dorsey, The Literary Structure of the Old Testament, 21–25; Harvey, Listening to the Text, 283–84; J. Holmstrand, Markers and Meaning in Paul: An Analysis of 1 Thessalonians, Philippians and Galatians (ConBNT28; Stockholm 1997) 24–32; B.C. Johanson, To All the Brethren: A Text-Linguistic and Rhetorical Approach to 1 Thessalonians (ConBNT 16; Stockholm 1987) 24–33. For discussion focusing upon the use of conjunctions and particles, see S.L. Black, Sentence Conjunctions in the Gospel of Matthew: καί, δέ, τότε, γάρ, οὖν and Asyndeton in Narrative Discourse (JSNTSup 216; SNTG 9; Sheffield 2002) 282–86; and S.E. Porter and M.B. O’Donnell, “Conjunctions, Clines and Levels of Discourse,” FilNeot 20 (2007) 3–14. 67 Guthrie, Structure, 71–72. Guthrie notes shifts in topic, genre, mood, person, number, actor, referents, and location (heavenly holy of holies). For those who view 10,19 as starting a new unit, see e.g., F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (rev ed.; NICNT; Grand Rapids 1990) ix; and Lane, Hebrews, 2:279.