Hi Peter,

You are right that there is some textual variation on Luke 24:12, with some manuscripts omitting the verse. But contrary to your suggested time-line, manuscripts that omit are later than many of those that include the verse. The omission is in the ‘Western’ Manuscript D, and several versions of the Old Latin (it).

This verse is one of the nine verses the 19th century scholars Wescott and Hort declared to be ‘Western non-Interpolations’. Whereas Western readings were not usually regarded as highly as those from Alexandrian manuscripts, W.&H. argued that in these nine verses the Western reading should be followed, and that every other manuscript contains an interpolation. (thus the odd expression: western non-interpolation)

In 1952 the Bodmer papyri were discovered, including P75 which is dated to late 2nd or early 3rd century. Earlier than previously known Alexandrian manuscripts, P75 also contains verse 12. Along with other reasons, this textual antiquity has made many, if not most, scholars increasingly dissatisfied with the ‘Western non-interpolation’ theory of W.&H.

But it is interesting to ask again the question, ‘what kind of nonsense?’. Here it is obviously an empirical question: what actually happened?  Did Peter run to the tomb etc? Even without Luke 24:12, we have another source that tells us he did (John 20), along with another; with Luke’s verse, we have a second; with the independent source behind the ‘road to Emmaus’ story (Luke 24:13-35) we have an allusion to the event, although Peter is not specifically named but it does use the plural (v.24), affirming the TWO of John more neatly than the ONE of Luke. It is also inherently probable that such a report from the women (which Luke acknowledges was received as nonsense) would be checked out by someone else.

Not bad, historically speaking.

Interesting that Peter was the first to preach publicly about the resurrection of Jesus, and the massive change of life for the world that that event entailed (Acts 2).