Some scholars regard the passage as a later insertion from a source similar to
Luke 12:54–56, or from the
Lukan passage itself, with an adjustment concerning the particular signs of the weather.
Scrivener (and Lagrange) argued that the words were omitted by copyists in climates (for example Egypt) where a red sky in the morning does not announce rain. Manuscript evidence is strong and textual critics take the omission very seriously. Internal evidence also can be used against authenticity. In passage 16:2b–3 Jesus spoke to his opponents in the second person, but in verse 4 he speaks in the third person. Verse 4 can be treated as a direct answer to the request of verse 1.
Gundry argues for the originality of passage, because of some differences with parallel passage in
Luke 12:54–56. It was not rewritten from Luke
ad litteram. According to
Weiss these verses cannot be adapted from Luke. Matthew used another, older source. Davies and Allison hesitate. According to Hirunuma, the "textual status of vv. 2b–3 must remain suspect". According to Weiss and
Tregelles the omission was a result of conformation to the preceding
Matthew 12:38–
39 (and also
Mark 8:11-12). Fleddermann notes that "the form appears only in Byzantine writers, a further sign that the passage is a late interpolation". The meaning of is 'it is red' and Byzantine writers are from the 4th century and later.
Kurt Aland: "The saying in Matt. 16:2b-3 represents a very early tradition, as does the Pericope Adulterae in John 7:53-8:11. (...) Matt. 16:2b-3 may possibly have been suggested by Luke 12:54-56, but it is not a parallel in the strict sense. In any event both texts must have been admitted in parts of the Greek Gospel tradition at some time in the second century – a period when there was greater freedom with the text. Only then were such extensive insertions possible, but considering the amount of opposition apparently encountered by the Pericope Adulterae, it must have been quite strongly rooted in the evangelical tradition." According to
R. T. France, the passage is probably an early gloss, verse 4 follows directly after 16:2a, and "sign of heaven" was not explained in original text of Matthew, just like "sign of Jonah" from 16:4 which left unexplained. == See also ==