It is just the same case like Comma Johanneum. The text of Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7b-8a) is even shorter than Matthew 16:2b-3.
- Matthew 16:2b-3: In the evening you say, 'The sky is red: it will be fine weather', and in the morning, 'The sky is red and angry: there will be a storm today'. So you know how to interpret the apperance of the sky, but you can't interpret the signs of the times
- 1 John 5:7b-8a: (...) in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth...
This passage is subject of discussion since the second half of the 19th century. It is authenticity is questioned. In wikisource we cannot enumerate manuscripts which include or exclude this passage. There is not place for explanations about authenticity of some questioned passages of the Bible. We have several articles like this in wikipedia (Comma Johanneum, Jesus and the woman taken in adultery). It is one from disputed passages - authentic or non-authentic. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- In several wikipedia articles is written: "The manuscript does not contain text Matt. 16:2b-3", or "Matt. 16:2b-3 marked by obelisk". There are several other articles which actually do not have this information, but we should add it if we want to expand them. Wikisource cannot help in that case. Wikisource is not place for explanations about authenticity or not some passages of NT. It is passage of New Testament which authenticity is disputed by scholars (another disputed texts: Mark 16:8-20; Luke 22:43-44; John 5:4; John 7:53-8:11; John 21:25; 1 John 5:7b-8a). Some of them have articles. Of course John 7:53-8:11 and Mark 16:8-20 are much longer than Matt. 16:2b-3, but "Comma Johanneum" is two times shorter and has article. If some of disputed and quostioned passages of NT have articles, why do not create for the other. Passages like John 7:53-8:11 and Mark 16:8-20 are much longer, but 1 John 5:7b-8a is much shorter. You can always say that "Comma Johanneum" is more original, it is important for dogma of Trinity, but Matt. 16:2b-3 is also original.
- "John 7:53-8:11" has article with a title "Jesus and the woman taken in adultery", "1 John 5:7b-8a" has title "Comma Johanneum". Probably if Matthew 16:2b-3 was titled in a simillar way ("the sings of the times" or "Demand for a Sign") it would not be proposed for deletion. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 07:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Do you want to merge Comma Johanneum with First Epistle of John? It is just the same situation. Of course "Comma Johanneum" is a long article, but this one also can be expand. We can write more about opinions of Church Fathers and present scholars. In wikipedia we have articles for signle words of NT: Logos, Paraclete, and no one propose merging with Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit. Some detailes will lost. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 06:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Leszek. The Comma Johanneum is shorter, and clearly deserves its own article.
- Already, this article has more detail than would be reasonable to include in the Gospel of Matthew article.
- Finally, this article is not just important to encyclopedic coverage of Matthew, it is relevant to Text criticism and to documentation of certain debates regarding the reliability of the New Testament.
- There are very few passages in the New Testament that have this kind of uncertainty associated with them, each one is extremely notable as a result.
- Merging would either give this passage undue attention in the Matthew article, or lead to loss of notable information useful in other articles. I recommend we leave the merge tag in place for one month. I doubt we'll hear much more about it, we can remove it after that time. Thanks to the tagger for raising the question, let's see if anyone wants to make an actual case. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)