There are two other possible doublets that rely on a particular synoptic source theory, and so are listed here rather than with the other doublets.
The accounts of the baptism and the transfiguration exist in all three synoptic gospels, and both appear to be Triple Tradition passages, with doublets in all three gospels, with Mt 3:17 // 17:5 and Lk 3:22 // 9:35 both having Mk 1:11 // 9:7 as a source on any synoptic hypothesis in which Mark precedes both Matthew and Luke. However, some supporters of the Mark-Q hypothesis consider Mt 3:17 / Lk 3:22 to have Q 3:22 as their source instead of Mk 1:11, with this therefore being an example of a Mark-Q overlap.
The logic here is that in Mt 4:6 / Lk 4:9 (which have no parallel in Mark and so on the Mark-Q hypothesis would be from Q) Satan refers to Jesus as ‘the Son of God,’ an identification that would require Q to contain an earlier introduction of Jesus as the Son of God to make any sense, e.g. in Q 3:22. However, even if Q existed and contained Q 3:22 it does not mean that aMatthew and aLuke must have used Q 3:22 as their source in preference to Mk 1:11, and in this case the parallel contexts in all three synoptic gospels suggest that on hypotheses in which aLuke knew Matthew (e.g. the MwQH and MwEL hypotheses), Mt 3:17 / Lk 3:22 are not double tradition verses, but instead triple tradition verses in conjunction with Mk 1:11, and will treated as such here.
Hawkins records his second example of “repetitions” of “expressions or ‘formulas’” in Matthew as:
2. ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα Mt iii. 17 = Mk i. 11 ; Lk iii. 22 : also Mt xvii. 5.
In other words he notes that Mk 1:11, Mt 3:17, Lk 3:22 all contain ‘in whom I am well pleased,’ and that those words in Mt 3:17 // 17:5 constitute a doublet. Given this it appears odd that Hawkins does not suggest that either the first half of these verses (or the complete verses) are also either a doublet or formulas. However, there are some differences:
This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, (Mt 3:17b // 17:5c) - Οὗτός ἐστιν μου ὁ ἀγαπητός ὁ υἱός
Thou art my beloved Son, in whom (thee) I am well pleased, (Mk 1:11b and Lk 3:22c) - Σὺ εἶ μου ὁ ἀγαπητός ὁ υἱός
This is my beloved Son, hear him (Mk 9:7b) - Οὗτός ἐστιν μου ὁ ἀγαπητός ὁ υἱός
This is my [beloved Son][my chosen one]: hear him (Lk 9:35) - Οὗτός ἐστιν μου ὁ υἱός ὁ ἐκλελεγμένος
It is also worth noting the similar phrases in other places:
… my beloved son (Lk 20:13)
This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. (2 Pet 1:17)
… but as my beloved sons (1 Cor 4:14)
… who is my beloved son (1 Cor 4:17)
One reason for the differences in the synoptics is that in some places God is speaking to Jesus (Thou art …), while in others God is speaking to John (This is …), and this may be the reason Hawkins does not note the use of “Thou art my beloved son” in Mk 1:11b and Lk 3:22c, and the three clear uses of “This is my beloved son” in Mk 9:7b, Mt 3:17b, 17:5c, even though in Mk 1:11b and Lk 3:22c the Greek is identical, and the same is the case with the doublet of Mt 3:17b // 17:5c.
In Mk 1:11b and Lk 3:22c the Greek is identical, and the same is the case with the doublet of Mt 3:17b // 17:5c. In contrast Mk 9:7c begins with the same words as Mt 3:17b // 17:5b but omits “in whom I am well pleased”, while Lk 9:35 appears to be a combination of Mk 9:7b and Mt 17:5c. However, there is a difficult variant here, with D and several Latin mss having the ‘adoptionist’ reading from Ps 2:7: “Thou art my son, today I have begotten you” in Lk 3:22, and with Lk 9:35 having “my chosen one” in some important mss, about which Metzger comments:
The original Lukan reading is undoubtedly ἐκλελεγμένος [beloved], which occurs in a quasi-technical sense only here in the New Testament. The other readings, involving more usual expressions, are due to scribal assimilation (ἐκλεκτός, 23.35; ἀγαπητός, Mk 9.7; Lk 3.22; ἀγαπητός, ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα, Mt 17.5).
It should also be noted that “my beloved son” is found in Lk 20:13 and 1 Cor 4:17, and “my beloved sons” in 1 Cor 4:14, which may simply indicate that expressions of this form were quite common. However, the six combinations of the phrases in the synoptics suggest something different, as there are three pairs of the same phrase, one being a doublet and the other two being almost exact Mark / Luke parallels.
Mk 1:11b, Mt 3:17b, and Lk 3:22c all exist within the same context (Jesus’ baptism), as do Mk 9:7b, Mt 17:5b, and Lk 9:35 (Jesus’ transfiguration). It is therefore all but certain that these are two Triple Tradition passages (not Mark-Source overlaps), and that Mk 1:11b and 9:7b respectively are therefore the sources of both halves of the doublet at Mt 3:17b // 17:5b. This does not explain why aMatthew changed “Thou art my beloved Son” in Mk 1:11b to “This is my beloved Son” in Mt 3:17b, but in The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, 30 Against Ebionites, 13.7, Epiphanius writes regarding the gospel used by the Ebionites:
And after saying a number of things, it adds, ‘When the people had been baptised, Jesus came also and was baptised of John. And as he came up out of the water, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, which descended and entered into him. And (there came) a voice saying, ‘Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.’ And again: ‘This day have I begotten thee.’
These quotes parallel Mk 1:11b and Lk 3:22c, including the adoptionist reading found at the end of Lk 3:22 in D and a number of Old Latin mss. Epiphanius then adds:
And straightway a great light shone round about the place. ‘Seeing this,’ it says, John said unto him, ‘Who art thou, Lord?’ And again (there came) a voice from heaven, ‘This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.’
Here is the parallel to Mt 3:17b, so it appears that Epiphanius knew of a source that included the reading in Mk 1:11b and Lk 3:22, as well as that in Mt 3:17b, and this then could be the reason that Mt 3:17b does not follow Mk 1:11b. Willker (Luke, TVU 44) has an extensive commentary on this difficult variant, and writes:
A so-called Adoptionistic or Ebionitic reading.
The reading seems to have been widespread and early. Internally it is clearly to be favored: It is the harder reading and the txt reading is possibly a harmonization to Mt/Mk. Acts 13:33 shows that Ps 2:7 is clearly connected with Jesus from early on. Where did the author of Hebrews get his quote? Did he know Lk in this form?
Do the church fathers really quote a special Lukan reading or are they just quoting Ps 2:7?
The version in the Gospel of the Ebionites is clearly a conflation, but of what? Of Mt and Lk? Or of two versions of Lk?
The Ebionites text is shown above, and despite what Willker notes it could be that this is the source of the two different readings, with God first addressing Jesus, and then John. If Ebionites was instead a source for Matthew then this could be the source of the text in Matthew.
This appears to be a straightforward case of aLuke creating two parallels of Mk 1:28 in the same chapter. However, there is the problem that the parallel in the same context as Mk 1:28 occurs many verses after the first half of the doublet, which is located immediately after Jesus enters Galilee following the temptation. Not only is there no indication of what Jesus did in Galilee to cause his fame to spread, neither Mark nor Matthew suggest in any way that Jesus did anything at this point.
As Lk 4:14b appears to be a unique addition to Luke, what is its purpose, especially as it precedes the Markan parallel at Lk 4:37? The answer is that it provides a reason why in Lk 4:23 Jesus is able to say:
No doubt you will quote to me the proverb, ‘Physician, heal yourself!’ and say, ‘What we have heard that you did in Capernaum, do here in your hometown too.’
At this point in Luke there has been no mention of Jesus preaching in Capernaum, so how can he make such a suggestion? The answer is that this is the function (the only function) of Lk 4:14b-15: to provide some context suggesting that Jesus could have already preached in Capernaum before Nazareth. There is no equivalent to these verses in either Mark or Matthew simply because Lk 4:23 has no equivalent in either of these gospels, and so their function is not required, as is explained in Well Known in Galilee - Twice.