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.
482 Gustavo Martin
including ergative clauses), interpersonal (role of authoritative prophet,
teacher, master expressed through imperatives, etc.), and textual
(cohesion by means of o{tan clauses and other elements), together
constitute a functional variety of language we have called
“proceduralâ€. A brief comparison of our text with the parallel passage
in Matthew 24 will help us to draw some conclusions regarding the
situation that required Mark to edit the Olivet Discourse episode as he
has, vis-à -vis Matthew’s account of it.
In Matthew 24,3, the disciples are asking Jesus: When will these
things be, and what will be the sign of your parousia and of the end of
the age? (tiv to; shmei'on th'" sh'" parousiava" kai; sunteleiva" tou'
aijw'no";) thus “sign†is in the Matthean account associated with the
parousia, not the destruction of the temple. Further, Matthew associates
the word tevlo" with the preaching of the gospel to all nations, while
Mark’s two references appear in the build up to the desolating sacrilege
and refer only to the hardships that will precede it. Additionally,
Matthew has done away with the first three o{tan clauses in the Markan
account, including the one in the disciples’ question, leaving only the
fourth that introduces the abomination of desolation itself. Gone from
Matthew are also two of the commands to watch out, strategically
placed by the Markan Jesus in Mark 13. The first is the emphatic
blevpete de; uJmei'" eJautouv" of Mark 13,9, and the second the concluding
and colophonic uJmei'" de; blevpete proeivrhka uJmi'n pavnta of 13,23,
which concludes the main section of the Markan speech and refers
back, as we saw, to the question of the disciples. Thus, the build-up to
the desolation, as well as linguistic elements that made the process
leading up to it immediate and relevant to the audience are removed
from Matthew’s version of the speech. Instead, Matthew emphasizes
the second horizon in the discourse, the coming of the Son of Man,
which he calls the parousiva, describing it in substantially greater
detail than Mark. This includes the supplying of a subject to Mark’s
“they will see†(all the tribes of the earth), and other details. Matthew
seems also to be wishing to emphasize the imminent expectation of the
parousia, as he has the evil servant say in his heart, “my lord is taking
his time…†(24,48).
What we suggested in our analysis of Mark 13 becomes somewhat
clearer when we compare Mark’s account of the Olivet Discourse with
Matthew’s. For Mark, the core, the highlight of the speech is, as we
have shown above, the section clearly answering the disciples’
question in regard to the destruction of the temple. The Markan Jesus