Luke 24:12

‘But Peter arose, and ran to the tomb, and stooping and looking in, he sees the linen cloths by themselves, and he departed to his home, wondering at what had happened.'

Peter, however, (at some stage - the account is telescoped) ran to the tomb, and stooping and looking in saw the linen clothes that had covered Jesus lying by themselves, and departed for his own home (his lodgings in Jerusalem) wondering at all that was said to have happened. This is the same incident as we find in John 20:1, tacked on here without giving a full explanation of the background so as to parallel the women's discovery in the tomb. Note how in Luke 24:24 Luke speaks of ‘they', probably with this incident in mind, thus indicating that Peter thus had someone else with him (who, as we know, was John). Impulsive Peter, remembering what Jesus had said, just wondered whether there might be something in what he had been told (as it turns out from John by Mary Magdalene). And when he found that the tomb was empty, and that Jesus' grave clothes were still there it made him wonder even more. But he was still not wholly convinced.

We note that here, as with those on the way to Emmaus there is a gradual building up from total scepticism to a feeling of uncertainty. They are not going to be convinced easily.

As the chiasmus reveals, Luke commenced this passage with the women looking into the empty tomb, and now it ends with Peter looking into the empty tomb, the former soon having been brought to belief by the angels, while the latter was left wondering whether there might be something in what they had said, having not yet come to belief. In typical Lucan fashion Luke thus makes clear how important the women are in the life of the people of God.

There is a slight question mark over whether Luke 24:12 should be omitted, but the evidence for inclusion is strong, including p75, Aleph, B, W, Theta, 0124, f1, f13 and most latin, syriac and coptic versions, a very powerful combination. It is omitted by the Greek/old latin MS D/d, and old latin versions a, b, e, l, r1 and Marcion. But we know that the Greek text of D was sometimes changed in order to agree with the old latin version d with which it was written in parallel and thus it may well be only the old latin versions that really exclude it. Its inclusion everywhere else makes the case for its inclusion almost certain, otherwise we would have expected some evidence of its absence elsewhere. Interpolating into the sources of every known MS but D would quite frankly have been impossible unless it the interpolation was so early that it was almost written at the same time as the original, the original then being sent to the area where the old latin versions were produced. But in the nature of the omissions that is unlikely

Furthermore in view of the important place of the verse in the chiasmus, and the fact that its omission is explicable in terms of its being seen as demeaning Peter in comparison with the women, and possibly also as contradicting Luke 24:34, (both of which might have been seen as good reason for omitting it), we should almost certainly include it, especially as Luke 24:24 cross references to it.