Matthew 16:2-3 — red sky at night, doubtful in the morning
The packet does not decide whether reading A or reading B is original: A omits the weather sayings, while B includes them. The dispute concerns the red-sky lesson in Matthew 16:2-3.
What the APB prints.
Every witness, on the record.
What a blind committee did here.
The APB's translation committee works blind: it is never told it is translating the Bible, never given a book name or a verse number, and it never sees the witnesses above. Whatever it did at this verse, it did on the language alone — and its record is public.
The blind committee record supplies no rationale note for this crux, and the pericope’s audit verdict is “flagged”. The APB nevertheless prints the weather lesson at this verse, beginning, “When evening comes, you say, 'It will be fair weather,' for the sky is red.” The record does not state why that wording was printed.
The case for each reading.
If the proverb drifted in
Reading A leaves Jesus’ response without the weather lesson. Its support is described as ℵ B and early versions, with the sayings absent; the witness row further characterizes the omission as found in the oldest uncials and several early versions. The stated difference also frames this possibility directly: the famous proverb is absent from the earliest witnesses. Westcott-Hort double-brackets the passage in the apparatus, and the packet says Westcott-Hort suspected that it wandered in from a cousin of Luke 12:54-56. On this account, the issue is not a small alteration within a sentence, but whether the whole excursus belongs at this point.
If Matthew wrote it
Reading B contains Ὀψίας γενομένης λέγετε Εὐδία… and preserves the weather sayings printed in the APB at Matthew 16:2-3. Tregelles, NA28, and RP support this passage in the apparatus; the Tregelles witness note says that the weather sayings stand, and it also states that the Byzantine text keeps the passage. The case for B therefore rests on witnesses and editions that transmit the lesson as part of the response. If Matthew wrote it, the comparison between reading the sky and failing to interpret the signs of the times remains part of this exchange.
The packet records a real division over whether the entire weather excursus appears here, but it does not resolve that division. It also supplies no doctrinal consequence. What changes is the presence or absence of the red-sky comparison and its reference to interpreting the signs of the times; no doctrine is identified in the supplied evidence as depending on this variant.
Asked plainly.
Are the red-sky sayings in Matthew 16:2-3 missing from early witnesses?
Yes. The packet says ℵ B and early versions omit the sayings, and describes the whole excursus as lacking in the oldest uncials and several early versions.
Which witnesses keep the red-sky weather lesson?
The apparatus lists Treg, NA28, and RP with Ὀψίας γενομένης … οὐ δύνασθε. The Tregelles row also says that the weather sayings stand.
Did Westcott-Hort print the passage normally?
No normal printing judgment is stated here. The apparatus shows ⟦WH⟧, and the packet says Westcott-Hort double-bracket the passage.
More places where the manuscripts argue.
Witness readings for critical editions are quoted from the SBLGNT apparatus (CC BY 4.0); Hebrew text from the Westminster Leningrad Codex (Open Scriptures Hebrew Bible). Readings of ancient manuscripts and versions are cited as published scholarly fact with their sources linked above. Nothing on this page declares a winner — the evidence is the point.
Weigh it yourself.
The registry doesn't tell you which reading is true. It puts every witness on one page, shows what a blind committee did with the same language, and leaves the verdict where it belongs — with the reader.