Procedural Register in the Olivet Discourse 469 he sends Artemas, etc (Col 4,16; Titus 3,12 etc). The question of the disciples is concrete, specific, and related exclusively to Jesus’ prediction of the doom of the Jerusalem temple. The first part of the speech (5b-23) addresses the question directly and specifically and does provide a set of potential or actual road signs culminating with the sign par excellence, set up where he ought not to be (43). When the disciples see the desolating sacrilege, those who are in Judea should flee without delay as the tribulation that will ensue is without parallel in history. The warning against false prophets and christs closes the inclusio that was opened at v. 6, and the section ends with the powerful colophon, in which pavnta points back anaphorically to the second part of the disciples’ question (v. 4b): But you watch out! I have told you all things. Contrary to Pesch, I wish to argue that Mark is not in this section writing anti-apocalyptic material, and inserting “when” clauses to correct eschatological expectations. Pesch is also incorrect in arguing that no real signs are given but merely the suggestion of “the end” being “nahe” (44). Neither apocalyptic not anti-apocalyptic, this material is practical, of direct and immediate relevance to the audience, yet conveying urgency in a crescendo which cannot be missed by readers and hearers, and which culminates in v. 14. As I mentioned above, the identification of the referent of tevlo" (vv. 8, 13) is a crucial issue, without which this section, as well as the speech as a whole, cannot be properly understood. The two instances of the word are part of the first and second subsections I have outlined above which exhibit the “when X do Y” pattern and build up in intensity climaxing in the third subsection. In the first instance, Jesus tells the disciples that wars and rumors of wars must come, but this is not the end. In the second instance, after describing in some detail the suffering that will befall the disciples, Jesus concludes: But he who endures to the end will be saved (v.23). This is followed immediately after by the final subsection (43) The determination of a historical referent is beyond the scope of this paper. However, the strong connections that tie the question and speech together, the emphatic colophon of v 23 which refers back to v. 4b, and the mention of Judea lend strong support to those that see vv. 14-23 as describing the events of 70 AD in Jerusalem including the razing of the temple. This view is further supported by a comparison of the parallel material in Matthew 24, for whom these events appear to be in the past. Matthew has left out the crescendo-creating o{tan clauses with imperatives, except for that of v. 14. In Matthew’s version of the Olivet Discourse the focus has become the parousia. (44) PESCH, Naherwartungen, 119.