Procedural Register in the Olivet Discourse 465 his disciples remain committed to it (35). Similarly, only Jesus is portrayed as sitting “opposite” the temple (v. 3) as he begins his speech to answer the question of the disciples, a detail to which much importance is attached by Mateos and many others (36). Those two clauses are all that can potentially be interpreted as contributing to Mark’s negative portrayal of the disciples in this episode formed by the narrative setting and the speech. Geddert has argued that signs (shmei'a) are consistently disapproved of in Mark’s gospel, and, therefore the speech of Jesus does not include any signs, the question asked of him notwithstanding. As we will show below, Jesus does provide the disciples a set of road signs, in a crescendo of relevance and importance leading up to v. 14, and no negative judgment is passed, therefore, on the disciples’ request. It is not signs from heaven or supernatural portents that both question and answer refer to, but concrete road signs that may help the disciples interpret and properly react to the events that are to befall them in the near future. Thus, two senses of the word shmei'a are evident in this episode, only one being inappropriate and characteristic of false prophets and false Christs (v. 22, cf. 8,12, no shmei'on shall be given to this generation ). France is, therefore, correct, the disciples are asking when the temple will be destroyed, and what shmei'on will help them to prepare for that formidable event (37). To this question Jesus provides a rather detailed answer (5b-23), but also gives additional predictions which extend beyond the scope of the question, delivered in a completely different style (24-27), and wraps up the speech with an interpretive key to the entire discourse (28-27). Following Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of the temple, the disciples ask the master a two-fold question: When will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished? Does the question point to one or two separate events as (35) MATEOS, Marcos 13, 86-87. (36) MATEOS, Marcos 13, 87. Scholars with an interest in Graeco-Roman rhetoric have attached special significance to Jesus’ positioning “against” the temple. Thus ROBBINS, “Rhetorical Ritual”, 5; YARBRO COLLINS, Mark, 602. But compare the kaqhmevnou … katevnanti tou' iJerou' clause of v. 3 with 12,41: kaqisa" katevnanti tou' gazofulavkion, where Jesus sits opposite the offering box v in order to evaluate positively the type of giving into the offering box that is praise worthy. (37) R.T. FRANCE, The Gospel of Mark (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, MI 2002) 506. He argues that the question and the speech deal only with the destruction of the temple, until v. 32 which refers to the second coming of Jesus.