Each of the four gospel writers gives a slightly different version of the events of that morning. Putting a detailed timeline to that day might clear up most apparent discrepancies, but may raise additional questions. Matthew and John were directly part of that story, as disciples. Mark and Luke were not. They got their information from others, both the disciples whom they knew personally, and probably also from the women.
Each of the authors had slightly different aims, and audiences, in mind when they wrote their narratives. Different details would have been included or excluded from the stories. Put yourself in their context: writing a gospel at the time was no doubt a much more time consuming exercise than writing a history of the same length today … it was all done by hand, with no word processing capabilities of editing, spell checking, moving paragraphs around here and there, sending early editions out to be checked by people quoted, etc. Quite possibly the documents were dictated to a scribe. I note this not to downplay the discrepancies, but rather to try to “get into” the processes that the authors dealt with. None of them tried to provide a “full and detailed” report. None of them were writing “reports” at all - rather they were telling the narrative of Jesus life and work.
So you mention that Mark 16: 8 says the women said nothing. However, if you read a little further (vs 10) you will notice that Mary did go and tell the disciples. There are other “discrepancies” that you could also find: Mark says that Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene first; Matthew says that when the women were running to the disciples, Jesus met them and they worshipped him. Perhaps both are correct.
Maybe there were more to-ings and fro-ings involved than any of the authors provide. Perhaps the three women went to the tomb together, but after seeing what had happened, they split up, with two running off immediately, while Mary Magdalene waited, looking in the tomb again, was told Jesus was raised, still doubted and asked the “gardner” if he knew where “they” had taken the body. Upon which Jesus said “Mary!” and so on. Perhaps He also met the other two on their way.
John mentions only Mary Magdalene. She got all the way back to Peter and told him that the stone was taken away, the body gone, and she didn’t know where they had moved the body to. Perhaps she went three times, once alone, the second time with the other Mary and Salome, the third time with Peter and John, after which she met the gardener, as related in John. And ran back to the disciples again, with the news that she had met Jesus.
Maybe all these details were not the main point that any of the writers wanted to include, because they would detract from the main point they were making. Ultimately, for those who are concerned about the differences, the question would be … so what? or rather … do any of these (to us) discrepancies in any way alter the fact of the resurrection? One could say, rather, it reinforces it - it illustrates very clearly (at least in my mind) how bewildered and shaken they all were that day. It was incredibly hard, in spite of all the evidence, to believe that Jesus had actually come back to life! Who could believe it? As my Dad would say “It was unbelievable, if true!” Would you have believed it? I certainly wouldn’t. Peter and John obviously didn’t; Thomas explicitly didn’t even when all the others told him of several meetings. The couple on the road to Emmaus were totally confused and bewildered by all the rumours they had heard. This kind of thing just doesn’t happen!
And yet it did. Our (MY) problem today is that I have been told about it from childhood, and it is just “old hat” and it’s only when I think about how the accounts so well portray (in the fewest possible words) the total shock that Jesus’ resurrection caused, that it begins to sink in … as very very true. This was not a story made up years later - if all the 4 gospels were in perfect agreement, that would more likely make me think there was careful collusion in spreading a perfectly consistent story.
(Ironically, the people who took it most seriously, were the guards, and the chief priests, who immediately set in motion a plan, first to buy the silence of the guards, and secondly to spread false allegations of the disciples’ making up stories! When you see how the disciples reacted - the high priests’ propaganda simply wouldn’t ring true.)
Don’t know if that helps.