I have done a series of posts focusing on the role of discontinuity in discourse, primarily considering its application to understanding the use of the historical present in the gospels. But lest you believe that this is a Greek-only thing, take a look at how (I contend) the Masoretes recognized and utilized the same principle, exploiting it in their “paragraph” divisions in Genesis.
The Masoretes developed a system of accents that preserve the proper cantilation of the Hebrew text. Most attention is given to the divisions of individual verses into smaller units, but there are a pair that are used to delineate what generally turn out to be pericopes. If you read through the text of Genesis and compare the English chapter divisions with the Masoretic parashot, you will find quite a bit of overlap. However, there are a few anomalies.
In the genealogy of Genesis 5, you will find an uncharacteristic use of the marker after each individual obituary, not just at the end of the overall unit. You keeners out there will also note that this is the famous genealogy where each description ends with “and he died.” The redundancy of the statement functions like a refrain in a song, making the separation between each segment stand out all the more. Perhaps this is what the Masoretes were trying to draw attention to.
But there is an exception in the chain of those who died: Enoch. Rather than die, he simply “was not” for the LORD took him (Gen 5:24). The “he died” makes the one who didn’t die stand out. What’s more, this genealogy is one of the few in Genesis that introduces a participant rather than just providing an epithet at the end of their toledoth. Who da man? The “bringer of rest,” Noah. Another is the introduction of Abram at the end of the account of Shem in Gen. 11:27.
So Genesis 5 provides an anomaly where there is too much segmentation through the repetition after each entry. It has the effect of slowing down the text, highlighting the repetition “he died” that was already highlighting the natural discontinuity between entries in the genealogy.
In other contexts, you will find that there are no parashot markers in places where the English Bible makes chapter divisions. You find this in Gen 18-19 being a single unit in the Hebrew text. I showed in my Edinburgh paper in 2006 that there are few natural discontinuities in this transition, and the writer/editor did nothing to highlight the ones that were there. He played it cool.
Another place where there are much longer stretches of unbroken text is in the Joseph saga. Parashot are found at 36.43, 37.36, 40.23, then there is nothing until 44.17. Here is the context:
14 When Judah and his brothers came to Joseph’s house, he was still there, and they fell to the ground before him. 15 And Joseph said to them, “What is this deed that you have done? Do you not know that such a man as I can indeed practice divination?” 16 So Judah said, “What can we say to my lord? What can we speak? And how can we justify ourselves? God has found out the iniquity of your servants; behold, we are my lord’s slaves, both we and the one in whose possession the cup has been found.” 17 But he said, “Far be it from me to do this. The man in whose possession the cup has been found, he shall be my slave; but as for you, go up in peace to your father.”
Note that it falls smack dab in the middle of a dialogue, just before Judah takes responsibility for his brother, the thing that leads Joseph to reveal his identity to his brothers. E. Tov cites such instances as evidence that the parashot usage lacks a coherent pattern, that it appears to be whimsical at times.
Call me stupid, but I think that they were pretty smart and had a pretty good sense about the discourse function of discontinuity.
Aren’t the Masoretes wonderful?
