Gustavo Martin, «Procedural Register in the Olivet Discourse: A Functional Linguistic Approach to Mark 13», Vol. 90 (2009) 457-483
I will rely on insights from Halliday’s register theory to explain the Markan Jesus’ use of a functional variety of language I call procedural register. The identification of procedural register in the main section of the Olivet Discourse (vv. 5b-23) will be shown to reveal the rhetorical design of the discourse within a first temporal horizon, of direct relevance for the audience and addressing the disciples’ question (v. 4). The absence of procedural register in vv. 24-27 indicates the opening of a second horizon in the speech, lacking immediate impact for the audience and no longer addressing the disciples’ question.
458 Gustavo Martin
Unfortunately the analyses of Black (3), Yarbro Collins (4), and
Robbins(5), among others, fail to engage consistently and in detail with
the language of the Olivet Discourse, and focus instead on possible Sitz
im Leben, or possible matches between the speech and the instruction
found in Graeco-Roman rhetorical manuals.
Mark 13 has often been seen as an ideal section of Mark’s gospel
for gleaning insights into the situation of Mark’s community that called
forth the evangelist’s writing. The abundance of imperatives, temporal
indicators, reference to the “desolating sacrilege,†and the study of the
parallel passages in Matthew and Luke have led scholars to discern in
Mark’s composition various possible concerns, needs, or errors of his
community in the years 40 to 75 C.E. (6). Although proposals as to
Mark’s purpose in writing abound, Beasley Murray’s survey reveals
the extent to which theological and philosophical bias has gotten in the
way of pursuing the task of investigating Mark’s agenda, as discernible
in his composing, or shaping and editing of the Olivet Discourse (7).
(3) C.C. BLACK, “An Oration at Olivet: Some Rhetorical Dimensions of Mark
13â€, Persuasive Artistry. Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in Honor of George
A. Kennedy (ed. D.F. WATSON) (JSNTSup 50; Sheffield 1991) 66-92.
(4) A. YARBRO COLLINS, “The Apocalyptic Rhetoric of Mark 13 in Historical
Contextâ€, BR 41 (1996) 5-36.
(5) V.K. ROBBINS, “Rhetorical Ritual: Apocalyptic Discourse in Mark 13â€,
Vision and Persuasion. Rhetoric Dimensions of Apocalyptic Discourse (eds. G.
CAREY – L.G. BLOOMQUIST) (St. Louis, MO 1999) 95-121.
(6) E.g. R. PESCH, Naherwartungen. Tradition und Redaktion in Mk 13
(Düsseldorf 1968) 231: “Der Evangelist spricht ein klärendes Wort in die
aufgeregte Situation der Gemeinde …â€, namely, to cool off eschatological
excitement. Similarly to Pesch, M.D. HOOKER, The Gospel According to Mark
(London 1993) 300, states that Mark wrote in order “to urge inaction, rather than
actionâ€. Thus also E. TROCMÉ, L’Évangile de Marc (Geneve 2000) 323, and many
others. T.J WEEDEN, “The Heresy that Necessitated Mark’s Gospelâ€, The
Interpretation of Mark (ed. W. TELFORD) (Philadelphia, PA 1985) 89-101, argued
that Mark was written to correct a heretical “theios aner†Christology. Most
recently regarding Mark 13 and the “Markan community†see: J. MARCUS, Mark
1-8. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Yale Bible;
New Haven, CT 2000) 25, 30. Yarbro Collins, voicing a widely held view
regarding the “rhetorical exigence†that called forth the speech, namely, the
appearance of false teachers and false messiahs during the first Jewish war with
Rome. See A. YARBRO COLLINS, Mark. A Commentary (Minneapolis, MN 2007)
603 –– a view already expressed in YARBRO COLLINS, “Apocalyptic Rhetoricâ€, 5.
But see B. WITHERINGTON, The Gospel of Mark. A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary
(Grand Rapids, MI 2001) 28-29.
(7) G.R. BEASLEY-MURRAY, Jesus and the Last Days. The Interpretation of the
Olivet Discourse (Vancouver 2005).