Take the example of Salome asking Jesus to enthrone one of her sons. Why include this story and John Mark following Jesus all the way to the Passion if this didn't end the narrative? In any event, Porphyry the ancient pagan critic of Christianity picked up another one of these 'enigmas' that escaped my notice:
There is also another argument whereby this corrupt opinion can be refuted. I mean the argument about that Resurrection of His which is such common talk everywhere, as to why Jesus, after His suffering and rising again (according to your story), did not appear to Pilate who punished Him and said He had done nothing worthy of death, or to Herod King of the Jews, or to the High-priest of the Jewish race, or to many men at the same time and to such as were worthy of credit, and more particularly among Romans both in the Senate and among the people. The purpose would be that, by their wonder at "the things concerning Him, they might not pass a vote of death against Him by common consent, which implied the impiety of those who were obedient to Him. But He appeared to Mary Magdalene, a coarse woman who came from some wretched little village, and had once been possessed by seven demons, and with her another utterly obscure Mary, who was herself a peasant woman, and a few other people who were not at all well known. And that, although He said: "Henceforth shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds." For if He had shown Himself to men of note, all would believe through them,and no judge would punish them as fabricating monstrous stories. For surely it is neither pleasing to God nor to anysensible man that many should be subjected on His account to punishments of the gravest kind. [Macarius, Apocriticus II: 14]
Of course Christians only see it as their duty to 'defend' the sanctity of the gospel. Yet consider for a moment what the original author's intentions might have been (the gospel was not a verbatim account of the Passion!).
Why would Mark portray Jesus as warning that the Jews would see Christ (not Jesus!!!) enthroned before their very eyes? Could it have something to do with a historical incident which Mark (whoever he was) knew already occurred in the period immediately following the Passion and which implied indeed that the Jews did indeed recognize the 'real messiah' of Christianity as the real messiah of Judaism? Could it be a reference to a story still preserved in the rabbinic literature about an enthroned messiah named 'Mark'? Could it be a reference to the incident in Sotah 41...
THE SYNAGOGUE-ATTENDANT TAKES A TORAH-SCROLL AND HANDS IT TO THE SYNAGOGUE PRESIDENT, AND THE SYNAGOGUE-PRESIDENT HANDS IT TO THE [HIGH PRIEST'S] DEPUTY. HE HANDS IT TO THE HIGH PRIEST WHO HANDS IT TO THE KING. THE KING STANDS AND RECEIVES IT, BUT READS SITTING. KING AGRIPPA STOOD AND RECEIVED IT AND READ STANDING, FOR WHICH ACT THE SAGES PRAISED HIM. WHEN HE REACHED, THOU MAYEST NOT PUT A FOREIGNER OVER THEE, HIS EYES RAN WITH TEARS. THEY SAID TO HIM, 'FEAR NOT, AGRIPPA, THOU ART OUR BROTHER, THOU ART OUR BROTHER!'
Of course to understand this story in its proper context you have to pay attention to the explicit mention of Marcus Julius Agrippa 'standing' when he should have been sitting. If you want a full explanation of this narrative you have to buy my book here.
