Steefen said
What?!

“If the prophecies of Mark 13 fit the Neronian persecutions so well why is there no “prophetic substitute figure” for Nero in Mark (such as a bestial anti-God figure)?  It seems if Nero was so central to the prophecy of Mark 13 there would have been some figure described as his stand in.”

 

Do you really see a pit-stop prophecy at Nerorian persecution when Jesus is clearly prophecizing about the destruction of the Temple?

Not you, per se, but whoever came up with THAT. Now, the Beatitudes are a different story–but even there, the beatitudes aren’t prophecy.

I think you make your point for yourself.  What I had written was paraphrased from Joel Marcus in the section where he refutes the idea that Mark 13 was about the Neronian persecution.  He’s just saying that at some point in the past (he doesn’t specify when and I don’t particularly know) scholars preferred a Roman origin for Mark and that therefore these earlier scholars looked at Mark 13 as a prophecy talking about Nero.  Marcus says if you pay attention though the chapter in Mark makes far more sense if you look at it with respect to the Jewish rebellion in Judea.

Keep in mind that “Mark” was the equivalent of “John Smith” today.  It was one of the most common Roman names.  As such it would not be surprising if not all of those verses refer to the same person.