460 Gustavo Martin not exactly match any of the usual categories, and a fresh look at the language, structure and possible functions of the speech may be required. Linguistically oriented monographs and articles have not, thus far, contributed any significant new insights into how the linguistic choices Mark has made in his composition can be seen to be addressing concrete rhetorical (i.e. addressable by means of language) needs of his community. In his two essays on Mark mentioned above, Longacre suggests a narrative template that is applicable to Mark’s gospel as a whole, as well as certain criteria for determining the peaks, or grounding scheme of the narrative. Unfortunately, Longacre excluded Mark 13 from the scope of his analysis. Paul Danove’s most valuable contribution to a linguistic analysis of Mark 13 is found, I would argue, in a 2003 article and in a chapter of his 2001 monograph (17). In his Biblica article, Danove contributes a fundamental insight to the ongoing discussion of the role of the Son of Man in Mark’s narrative and shows how Mark deploys a rhetoric of repetition to progressively reaffirm (“sophisticating rhetorical strategy”) or contradict (“decon- structive rhetorical strategy”) existing beliefs. Danove concludes that, contrary to previous beliefs of his readers, Mark’s narrative rhetoric foregrounds the Son of Man’s progressive characterization as suffering, dying, rising and coming again. Though, as Porter himself admits, his essay is merely program- matic and suggestive, Stanley Porter’s application of register to Mark’s gospel (18) points the way forward with some useful examples of how Hallidayan register theory may shed light on some much debated issues in Markan studies, including Mark’s rhetorical agenda. For Porter, the concept of register represents a valid, complementary ally to traditional criticism in the quest for the recovery of the context of situation that called forth the text. However, it seems to me more concrete results will be obtained from the analysis of a specific section of the gospel such as the Olivet Discourse episode, since it seems clear (17) P.L. DANOVE, “The Rhetoric of the Characterization of Jesus as the Son of Man and Christ in Mark”, Bib 84 (2003) 16-34, esp. 23-25 on the Son of Man; ID., “Contribution of the Method to Narrative Analysis”, Linguistics and Exegesis, 120-139. An earlier version of this chapter appeared as “The Narrative Function of Mark’s Characterization of God”, NT 43 (2001) 12-31. (18) S.E. PORTER, “Register in the Greek of the New Testament: Application with Reference to Mark’s Gospel”, Rethinking Contexts, Rereading Texts. Contributions from the Social Sciences to Biblical Interpretation (ed. M.D. CARROLL R.) (JSOTSS 299; Sheffield 2000) 209-229.