FWIW observation: The longer I study the serious, exegetical Mark commentaries who actually deal with grammar and syntax,* the more skeptical I’m becoming of some common claims. As just one example, one of my favorite commentaries (and it is that) on Mark is Robert Gundry’s massive tome. It’s really a magisterial work, worth the price just for the introduction. He’s read everybody and interacts with most of them in massive sets of notes on each section. These notes sections may not be the best organized, but they are loaded with helpful material, even if you often disagree with him. But to my point, the more I read Gundry the more leery I am of claims to “emphasis.” If there is as much emphasis in Mark as Gundry finds, then Mark comes across as a writer who always uses his caps lock key for email. (Or maybe like an Oliver B. Greene commentary filled with CAPS, or an A. W. Pink book! —I think Pink got a fire sale special! and bought an entire warehouse full!! of exclamation points!!! 🙂 ) When everything is emphatic, then nothing is, even if you dress it up with fancy names like hyperbaton, aposiopesis, trajection, etc.
*Surprisingly, not all “exegetical commentaries” spend much time on grammar and syntax. So long as I’m naming names in this post, Craig Evans’ WBC vol on the 2d half of Mark is a good example of this. His notes with the translation are almost entirely text critical, and his commentary (about 600 pgs on 8 chs) rarely discusses grammar or syntax. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a helpful work–but its forte is Second Temple backgrounds, not the language.