The Gospel of Mark lists by name the persons (all women) viewing Jesus’s burial, and a few verses later—in narrating the empty tomb discovery—gives the same list of viewers with only a slight difference.
Against the relevance of that first claim, plausibly…
• …it is just an accident of fiction.1
• …it is just knit together two different traditions he inherited with slightly different lists.2
In the empty tomb accounts, Mark specfically includes the witness names most known by his audience. [Details forthcoming]1
In Mk, the women are named as if the audience is supposed to know them. This is relevant because it is the same sort of way Mark’s tradition names Rufus and Alexander, whose only significance is that they are known to the audience. [Details forthcoming]
The account in Mk 15-16 comprehensively loads the women’s role with witness-engendering language and no competing roles
• …the Greek conveys a sense of sustained attention.
• …seven times Mk applies seeing verbs to them.
• …their commission is based on their having seen.