The word used seems versatile, possibly referring to any of several specific emotional states, often accompanied by physical signs of intensity. That is clearly the case at 16:8.gmx wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 3:24 pmI attempted to find a thread about what the women were a afraid of, but didn't locate it. I'm sure it's been asked before. If they never understood that Jesus foretold his resurrection, and find the stone rolled away and a young man saying he is risen, go tell Pete and the homies to hightail it up to Galilee, why were they so afraid, and secondly, why would being so afraid be a reason not to tell the inner circle?
There doesn't seem to be any need of a "something" to be afraid "of." The Sunday morning events as narrated are emotionally enervating. The context is that the women spent all day Friday watching somebody being slowly suffocated after having been partially flayed alive.
There is also nothing in the word chosen that connotes permanent disability. I do not see any issue of whether Mark meant what he wrote. What he wrote carries no commitment to the women keeping anything secret forever and ever thereafter.
Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. The only way Mark would be committed one way or the other is if his story continued onward from 16:8.
Example: On one Sunday morning thirty or forty years ago, John asked me to take his son to the the zoo. I declined. I was having the most emotionally draining weekend of my life, and I found myself unable to drive, not anywhere.
In the example, we aren't told that I never, ever accompanied John's son to the zoo. We are told only why I did not promptly comply with John's request. While it is possible that I never did go to the zoo with John's son, just as it is possible that I never drove anywhere else ever again, those cannot be inferred from the example.
Example continued: On one Sunday morning thirty or forty years ago, John asked me to take his son to the zoo. I declined. I was allergic to birds and mammals, and I was frightened of reptiles.
In this case, because my stated reasons for declining John's request are chronic and their salience to the request is essential, we may infer that I didn't comply for a long time.
If apart from the text, the reader has reasons to expect that John's son had visited the zoo sometime early on during those decades that elapsed, then we still know nothing about how that happened. It may be that John made other arrangements, or maybe I took his son to the zoo after all.
In the first example, perhaps I felt better that afternoon, or the next weekend. In the second case, maybe I consulted an allergist and a psychiatrist, and John's request became a turning point in my life and in the lives of those around me.
Reason enough to think there was more to this story, IMO.