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.
474 Gustavo Martin
engaging with these fundamental differences, Wright argues, following
Caird, that vv. 24-27 are still part of Jesus’ answer to the question
raised by his disciples, and that the entire speech makes reference to
the destruction of the Jerusalem temple (56).
Clouds of controversy continue to swirl around vv. 26-27. To what
extent and how is this passage dependent on Daniel 7Q; directly related
to the previous question, what is the direction of the Son of Man’s (57)
“coming,†or “going†(ejrcovmenon)? How are we to explain the changes
in clause structure, including the insertion of the articles, from the
Aramaic of Daniel 7,13 to the Greek of Mark 13,26, and other New
Testament passages? What is the referent of “they will see†(o[yontai)
in v. 26? How is this section, radically different as it is, tied
thematically to the material before and after it in the speech of Jesus? I
will address these points in order.
The degree of dependency of Mark on Daniel 7 is one of the cruces
interpretum of this passage. Is it only a clear allusion to Daniel, or are
we to use the Danielic text to interpret Mark 13 in its details, assuming
a similarly detailed association on the part of the audience / readership
of the speech? (58). The focus of the present article is linguistic and
literary, and matters of intertextuality are outside our scope. However,
I wish to address this point in terms of what Wright, France and Hatina
claim, based on their reading of Daniel, ought to be the interpretation
of Mark 13,26-27. Thus, as appears to be the case in Daniel 7, Wright
and France argue that the movement of the Son of Man in Mark 13,26
ought to be understood as upward to God’s abode, in order to be
enthroned and receive eternal dominion (59). From a literary point of
(56) WRIGHT, Jesus and the Victory, 341.
(57) The exponential growth in the literature on the Son of Man in recent
decades is illustrated in C.C. CARAGOUNIS, The Son of Man. Vision and
interpretation (WUNT 38; Tübingen 1986) 9-10, n. 1-2. For a recent summary and
evaluation see D. BURKETT, The Son of Man Debate. A History and Evaluation
(SNTS MS 107; Cambridge 1999). From a literary-critical standpoint see H.L.
CHRONIS, “To Reveal and to Conceal: A Literary-Critical Perspective on the Son
of Man in Markâ€, NTS 51 (2005) 459-481.
(58) See on this HATINA (“The Focusâ€, 60, n.66) admitting the problematic
nature of the assumption, and qualifying it in terms of “a certain degree of
familiarityâ€. But this qualification is absent from his statement in the note 74.
(59) On the basis of Daniel 7, argues WRIGHT (The Victory, 361), including
footnote 156, we should interpret the coming as towards God, not downward to
earth: “Nothing in Daniel, in the rereadings of Daniel in the first century, or in the
teaching of Jesus as we have studied it, pushes the reading of Mark 13,26 in that
directionâ€. See also FRANCE, The Gospel, 534. HATINA (“The Focusâ€, 63),
FOLLOW US