The Women Told No One?

“One point, in particular, seems to be irreconcilable. In Mark’s account the women are instructed to tell the disciples to go meet Jesus in Galilee, but out of fear they don’t say a word to anyone about it.” – Bart Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted, 49

The quote above comes from one of the leading secular New Testament scholars, Bart Ehrman. According to Ehrman, the shorter ending of Mark stands in contradiction to the empty tomb narrative portrayed in the other Gospels. What is meant by the “shorter ending” of Mark? The majority of scholars believe verses 9-20 of Mark 16 are a later addition. The debate regarding the longer ending of Mark, verses 9-20, is outside the scope of this article. Thus, for my purposes here, I will assume Mark 16 ends with verse 8 (the shorter ending). The goal of this article is to show that the short ending of Mark 16 is in harmony with the narratives of the other Gospels.

Mark 16:8 reads: “So they went out quickly and fled from the tomb, for they trembled and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid” (emphasis added).

Skeptics often emphasize that the women “said nothing to anyone.” Thus, Mark is at odds with Matthew and Luke, both of which display the women bringing news of the empty tomb to the disciples. However, is this actually the case? Is Mark expecting the reader to believe the women literally told no one? There are several reasons to think Mark does not intend to mean a strict literal reading.

First, if the women did not tell anyone, how then does Mark know the story? In order for Mark to write this story down, the women would at least have had to tell him, meaning they did not literally tell no one. Mark would expect his readers to understand that he does not mean literally “no one” or else he would not be able to write about it. Either Mark is extremely stupid or he is expecting the reader to not take this at its strictest sense.

Second, Mark’s writing style reveals that he does not intend this to be taken literally in its strictest sense. Mark will use all-inclusive terms when the majority of people do something. For example, in Mark 14, Jesus is arrested by the Jewish leaders. After being arrested, Mark addresses the actions of Jesus’ disciples saying, “Then they all forsook Him and fled” (Mark 16:50). Does Mark literally mean that every single one of Jesus’s disciples fled? Or is he using the term “all” since most of the disciples fled? Clearly Mark intends to mean the latter. What makes me think this? Just continue reading the passage. Verses 53 and 54 read, “And they led Jesus away to the high priest; and with him were assembled all the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes. But Peter followed Him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest. And he sat with the servants and warmed himself at the fire.” Wait, Mark just said in verse 50 that “all” the disciples fled and four verses later is saying, “Peter followed.” Either Mark is contradicting himself within just a few verses or he is not intending to literally mean “all” in verse 50. If I say I spoke in front of 1,000 people and they all laughed at the joke I told, am I really expecting you to believe I was able to observe all 1,000 people laughing at my joke? Of course not! I am making the point that the overwhelming majority of people laughed. I am not expecting you to take it literally in its strictest sense. This seems to be Mark’s method when the majority of people perform a particular action.

Going back to chapter 16, it seems that when Mark says the women “said nothing to anyone,” he means one of two options: 1) most of the women did not tell anyone at least in the immediate moments following the discovery of the empty tomb; or 2) the women only told the disciples and no one else. I believe the latter option makes more sense. In fact, the other Gospels record the women only telling the disciples. In Acts we see the disciples publicly proclaiming the risen Christ. However, we only see the male followers of Jesus publicly proclaiming Christ. Never do we see the women, who had discovered the empty tomb, doing such public proclamation. This is probably due to the fact that a woman’s testimony was not esteemed as highly as that of a man’s.[1] Thus, just as “all” the disciples forsook Jesus except Peter, the women did not tell “anyone” except the disciples.

Lastly, if the women had told no one, why would Mark want to spread this story about the women finding the tomb? There is much debate over whether a woman’s testimony was reliable or not in the first century. However, it is not debated that a woman’s testimony was not on par with that of a man.[2] Given this fact, if the women had remained silent, why would Mark want to get their story out? Instead, he would want to have Peter and the other disciples as the ones discovering the empty tomb. He would not want to mention the women finding the tomb, especially if no one already knew the story. However, if the women had told someone (the disciples), and the story had spread, it would then make sense why Mark would include it.

In consideration of these arguments, I believe Mark did not intend his readers to believe that the women literally told no one. I believe the reasons above provide strong evidence against any notion that Mark contradicts the other Gospels on this point.

References:

[1] Gary Habermas and Mike Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 72-73

[2] Ibid