Learn English – Euphemism and Colloquialism as Literary/Speech Devices

Preterition may fit. Here is the definition in Dupriez, Bernard Marie, and A. W. Halsall (translator). A Dictionary of Literary Devices : Gradus, A-Z. U of Toronto, 1991 (quote from p. 353.):

"A figure by which summary mention is made of a thing, in professing to omit it" (OED). See also Lanham, Lausberg, Littre, and Morier. Both Quinn (pp. 70-1) and Fontanier (p. 143) add that such a declaration of omission is in fact a way of emphasizing the allegedly omitted material.

In each of your examples is something quite similar - summary mention of a thing in professing that a speaker omitted it, in order to emphasize the allegedly omitted material. To use your first example:

1. Just then his disciples came back. They marveled that he was talking with a woman, but no one said, “What do you seek?” or, “Why are you talking with her?” (Gospel of John 4:27; ESV)

Stating the omitted questions has the effect of emphasizing them. No one may have said them, but it suggests that others in that situation would have asked, or that these questions were seen as reasonable if a wise man like Jesus talked with a woman. Similarly, the other two examples further qualify the response of the two men to the day and the response of the angry man.

The main oddness here is that examples of preterition are usually in first person rather than in third person. However, nothing in the definition forbids its application to third-person narration.

Possible synonyms include include paralipsis/paralepsis or occupatio, though note that at least one scholar has disputed that preterition should be called that (Kelly, H. A. “Occupatio as Negative Narration: A Mistake for ‘Occultatio/Praeteritio.’” Modern Philology, vol. 74, no. 3, 1977, pp. 311–315.):

Quite clearly, then, preterition [and not occupatio or occultatio] is the appropriate term for Chaucer's usual practice of negative narration [...] (p. 315)