The Lint Papers Part III- resurrecting a deceased equine (disciples, hell, Egyptian)

[LargeKingCat]

Disclaimer: I am not bucking for a Noble prize in religion by writing this, I am simply stating an opinion, an idea, and hopefully encouraging dialogue

So LINT paper 1 Explained how Paul's revelations, which were more likely hallucinations brought on by seizure disorders were NOT anything more than delusions and exist not only as no proof or evidence of Jesus' resurrections, but should be evaluated as to the validity and reevaluation as to whether the writings of the mentally ill should be taken as religious prophecy (see Geschwind Syndrome)

Lint Paper 2 I discussed the New Testament NOT as Eye Witness but as Allegory, myth and obsessive writings of someone with obvious neuro-psychiatric illness.

Today I jump to Easter and the Resurrections because the Final Paper, which is a discussion of "Why?" and the problems of certain literalistic beliefs having a negative impacts on some followers would be a better Easter discussion as opposed to abusing the corpse of a recently deceased Equus ferus caballus thus angering Peta as well as the already annoyed Pauline Christians.

My point has always been that there was NO bodily resurrection of the crucified Yeshua ben Josef, or Jesus Christ as he is known today.

First off, someone will say "Oh Oh the Bible says:" Well The Bible is myth and allegory, it is not history, it is not fact, it is not science. It is theology, which is similar to mythology and in a way *Cryptozoology.

So saying "Well the Bible says" gets nowhere with me. BUT since it seems to be a basis for many people, let's dissect and analyze the mythology within it.

If we consider that in the Bible, there are 4 Narratives within the Four Gospels Being Matthew Mark Luke John which discuss Jesus death, and return to life. None agree on the details, and none were written by eyewitnesses and all were written after the fact, in Greek, a language neither Jesus nor his disciples spoke. Interesting that outside of the 4 writings, no one else thought it interesting enough to record or relate such a momentous event. Especially with the number of scribes and Romans in the area.

Of course, returning from the dead was nothing unusual to the Superstitious people of the times. The Prophets Elijah and Elisha resurrected dead people, and so did Jesus and Paul. And by far these were not the first or only ones. The Greeks stories of Achilles, Dionysus, Persephone all predated the New Testament myths (and were written in Greek, which influence Hellenistic Jews such as Paul) Not to mention the Osiris story, which is significant as Egypt and Israel shared a common bondage and common enemy under Rome. So reanimation stories already existed in mythology before Jesus.

I think that today, in the 21st century, people often fail to remember just how Superstitious (ignorant?) people were in the Iron and Bronze ages. For example, Astrology was so widely accepted that monarchs would hire astrologers to advise them in any and all affairs. Situations like the Oracle at Delphi, which today we know and understand as the side effect of hallucinogenic ethers, would be taken as Divine Prophecy. As would Paul's "Visions" Brought on by Temporal lobe Epilepsy. People still reported dreams as visitations from dead relatives and friends. Dreams were still considered divination by many.

But, stories of someone returning from the dead, while mythic, would spark a great degree of hope for desperate , poor, imprisoned or unknowledgeable people. And people would cling to them in hope of a chance at a better world than Occupied Judea.

The Jesus crucifixion myth is not the Only Biblical story with no foundation in fact. How many remember that as Jesus died, Graves in The area opened up and the dead walked the earth? Now again, no account outside Matthews gospel exists of this story, (which Biblical Literalists will still accept as fact) but Imagine, Dead people walking around, although we do not know how many, how long, or who they ate and where they went afterwards, but something like that would make even Rome take interest. But again, it is an allegorical myth, and not a literal fact. Seriously, rotting corpses, partially decomposed, walking around and appearing to people in the town.....more of a good Halloween story than a springtime tale.
YIKES


The Gospel Jesus Crucifixion stories is Full of allegorical myths and pretty empty on facts. While Jesus could be seen as a symbol of man's higher spiritual evolution, and the crucifixion as the turning point from when a man becomes self actualized, enlightened or even spiritually aware, for Christians, it is a literal event and basic to the entire mythology. Without a risen Savior, people cannot be saved. That is the core belief expressed by many.

SO let's go back to the Garden of Eden and Creation myth, something that fails on so many levels, and point out that as man was never perfect, never healthy (Seriously, a perfect man disobey god by eating something forbidden? or an all knowing deity creating a companion which he KNEW would fail?) we know that scientifically, and this is provable and demonstrable, that Humans were not a creation, but a product of Evolution, and never perfect, taking nature millions of years to get where we are today, still with bodies that wear out as does everything else in the universe.

Supposedly, a talking snake walked up to Eve, (I guess it had legs, because afterwards it was cursed to slither on it's belly, which, according to scientific records, it had been doing for 350 Million years already), and somehow convinced Eve to eat of a forbidden tree, and coax Adam into it, thus creating the concept of Original Sin, the Fall of Man, and the need for a Savior to restore man to perfection and oneness with God.....**

Well, since there was no Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, there is no Original Sin and no need for a Savior.

The Concept of Jesus as a sacrifice seems to have evolved later with early Jews and Christians anyway, but that is a discussion for another thread The Point is, Jesus Crucifixion was NOT a sacrifice to god, if anything, it was a reaction from Jews and/or Romans.

Which again, the story is full of holes. We are told that during the Passover, a group of Jewish Elders, known as the Sanhedrin met to discuss the fate of Jesus. These councils had 27 members, and work during the Passover and Sabbath was forbidden. SO logic would state that the Sanhedrin would not have violated Jewish Law and Tradition by meeting on the week of Passover, but rather put any business off until the next week. I do not see how they were able to round up 27 elders during a time when they would be celebrating with their families to go off and work.

SO chalk that one up as an embellishment.

Several years ago, the late great Rifleman posted a timeline showing how Jesus (or anyone else) would have been able to go through the events described, arrest, trials x 3, flogging, crucifixion, death, burial all in one short time period. Now I am aware that many apologists, mostly evangelicals, have written timelines that show how it could have happened. Again, since the Jewish Elders could not have met, and Rome would not have intervened on the basis of violation of Jewish Law, then Jesus had to be seen as a threat to Rome, but we are told that before Herod and Pilate, he was told that he had done nothing wrong. Bishop Spong reiterated the same thing once in one of his weekly messages. The story could not have been accomplished in the detail and depth which Apologist try to say that it did.

This leads to the Barrabas myth. The Bible states, incorrectly, that it was a tradition for Rome to release a Jewish prisoner during Passover. The FACT is that ROME did NOT release prisoners based on a holiday. And Rome did not take orders from Jewish Elders either. And Barrabas, according to scholars , is a fictional character. And it is obvious. BUT The story needs an allegorical way of getting Rome involved, in order to rewrite the Jesus Myth to fall inline with Moses , Elijah, Elisha, and Old Testament (Talmud) prophecy

In addition, Romans executed who Rome wanted executed. They did not execute people because Jews or Egyptians did not agree with them. They did not answer to the Sanhedrin, and would have told the Sanhedrin to deal with the problem themselves, and not waste the time and energy of a Roman Prefect with something so trivial as a violation of Jewish Law . Which it seems was happening all over the place on all levels anyway.


SO let us assume a WHAT IF (as opposed to a what is) Lets suppose that someone really did decide to Execute Jesus Crucified Criminals were let to hang as an example. They were not taken down and sold to family members or friends, in fact a Roman Guard, while tempted would not want to be Punished himself for accepting a bribe to sell the body of a deceased criminal. In addition, the idea was for crucifixion to last for days, bringing about a long slow tortuous death. Death did not come in a couple of hours, that would defeat the purpose. Bad weather did not deter a crucifixion, who cares if a naked criminal on a cross gets wet?

We have also the likely fictional character then of Joseph of Arimathea, who is referenced as a Jew and purchased the body of Jesus for burial, something again that would be taboo on the timeline. Many scholars state that Joseph of Arimathea as Literary fiction, an allegorical character, not a real person. Again, he shows up and asks for the Body, but how did he know Jesus was dead? He was not at the crucifixion......BUT A literary character has to take the body to a tomb, as opposed to a mass grave that would have housed executed criminals from the past two weeks.

Which brings us to the final point. According to the Bible, and no other sources, Jesus was placed in a tomb and came back out alive 3 days later. The key here is the empty tomb, and this to me is the key that Jesus never had a bodily resurrections and the accounts of the Bible are not accurate, truthful or real but simply allegorical.

IF Jesus or Anyone else, in a time of Superstitious and desperate people, came back alive out of a tomb, that tomb would have been marked and preserved to this day. But to this day, no one knows for certain where that tomb is. There are likely places, including the basement of the Church of the Sepulcher, but scholars, historians, archeologists all agree to disagree on the location, with many saying that it is lost.
Well, someone coming back from the dead would have caused people to take notice. Even Romans. Imagine Roman followers of Dionysus? They would have claimed that tomb in a second. People would be wanting to put loved ones and pets in it to see if they reanimate too. EVERYONE would know where it happened, and it would be documented by everyone, and Jewish tradition of venerating graves would not have allowed it to be lost. But it is, for all intents and purposes, lost and unknown.

In fact, it is said that Rome built a temple over it, and some 300 years later, someone came back and said "OH OH IT WAS RIGHT HERE" But again, they could not know and to this day we do not know where this history changing event occurred, and that to me shows that in fact there was no tomb and no burial.


Of course, there was no need for one anyway, but Old Testament stories had to be rewritten to cast Jesus in the light of Moses and Elijah so what better way than by making him come back alive!?

Again, as an allegorical story, of a personal rebirth, a "religious awakening" or as some say "An AH- HA!" moment the story can be symbolic of human nature and m=human awakening. But as a real, literal account, it fails on every level.

So remember that on April 4, as you eat your Cadbury egg and talk with me at the Atheist online convention I already have my Ticket to the virtual event, and am looking forward to Matt Dillahunty's magic show.

Thanks for reading, now let me hear YOUR opinion, and remember, I do not dislike you if we disagree, in fact the world would be a sucky place if we all agreed on everything. We would not have diversity which is so interesting and allows for growth and insight through captivating discussions. I would encourage certain people to be polite, but since they are probably not the ones reading this, no matter.








* Cryptozoology is the study of creatures reputed to exist, of which evidence is minimal to non-existent, such as the Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, the Chupacabra. Theology is similar because all that exists is writings About a deity, as opposed to hard physical evidence.


** Can you bring me a person today who is one with this God? I would like to examine him or her please.

[TRANSPONDER]

Very interesting post and you know about Chupacabra .

[LargeKingCat]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Very interesting post and you know about Chupacabra .

We actually saw one in Georgia in December of 2018. We were driving on a back road to my MILs house, my son and I , and we got lost (of course) so we were using the GPS to get us back to our starting point. We passed the Half Hairless mangey dog looking thing, large pointed ears, large head, smallish body by comparison med hairless tail. half the animal was bald with brown gray pink skin. Rest had short grayish fur....I looked at it and said "Look Chupacabra" My son said "Hmm Sure enough." We went on, I was frustrated at the fact that we had gotten lost.

BUT In spite of our reputation as Photographers, we did not stop, turn around and get a picture of it. SO All you have to go by is our testimony of it. I know what I saw, and people who say they saw the Sasquatch know what they saw, but I can give you no photographic evidence. And I cannot give you a piece of Hair for DNA testing, or saliva, or even pick it up, throw it in the back and mail it to you. SO what was it? Cryptid? Sick Stray Dog? Someone pulling a joke by messing with a dog's fur? Some hyriid coyote dog? Who knows.

Just that we both say we saw something. Perhaps later that day, someone sped by and said "What was that? Was that a Mountain Lion?"

Just like the stories of Mary Madeleine and the other Mary at Jesus' tomb. no one else was there, no one knows what they saw, In fact, the stories as to who was there and what they saw differed, depending on who told it.

You can go tell your friends "Hey this American yank and his son think they saw a Chupacabra. " if they repeat it to their friends, then in a few months, it may be, from someone else there, "Hey this crazy American got bit by a Chupacabra he tried to catch and got Rabies" or some such story.

Which is how legends evolve.

[hljc]

Jesus Christ heard denier all before from the late Roman Empire to the Mohammedans, to the free masons Europeans to the nazi reich to the humanist and more, have rejected the resurrection and life giving Jesus Christ, and have persecuted believers with their dominance ..... But Jesus is real and has an everlasting kingdom which will go on of ever and a day ......... And Christians are not delusional, as many have intelligent of Nobel Prizes in science and the such, as even the Taliban cancel culture will have 0 effect on the end of Jesus Christ and His plans

[Harry Diogenes]

I have moved this post here as it is relevant here, not off topic.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

So your point comes down to 'those who believe' was original and was missed out (fatigued) by Luke or was not (as Luke correctly copied) and was added by Matthew and Mark which (without talking collusion, which is hardly possible) must mean they both worked from an amended gospel with additions that Luke never saw.

No, the original did not have children. Mark invented his story by adding children, with (1) Jesus taking a child, then (2) talking about people who cast out demons before (3) returning to causing the children (believers) to stumble in their belief. Luke then uses part 3, leaving us with the question what children is Luke talking about? Luke only makes sense if he is changing a source (Mark or your hypothetical M).

As for collusion, this is not required. Mark writes an allegory of Paul's teachings; Matthew 'corrects' Mark, hoping his text will replace Mark; Luke corrects both, hoping his text will replace Mark and Matthew; John 'corrects' all three. It is not until the need to combat Marcion's first canon that all four (and other works) are published as a second canon.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

I can only say that 'fatigue' to explain so many omissions becomes a bit over -used, ...

As is your counter argument, the original makes mistakes and is then corrected by the earlier gospels, only for Luke to copy the original mistakes. Not only do you have to presume a Q source existed, you also have to presume it had errors.

But if Luke is using Mark and Matthew as sources, we would expect fatigue without presuming anything. We know it happens.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

... and I would argue that the Decapolis material (the Great Omission) cannot be put down to 'fatigue'. Either Luke deliberately left all of it out, or it wasn't in the gospel he used.

Correct, fatigue should leave us with small errors, not large omissions. Luke not only made mistakes, he also added, edited or deleted text he did not need for his theological purpose.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

This is of course off the topic, but I had to round the case off, I think. If you want to look into whether Clement was quoting the original or paraphrasing for his own purposes, we should find a relevant thread. The one that Wayfarer ran away from might do.

Clement says Remember the words of Jesus our Lord: for He said "...", so he appears to be quoting an unknown text, just as he quotes the OT in other places in his letter. I doubt he was paraphrasing.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

I have moved this post here as it is relevant here, not off topic.

No, the original did not have children. Mark invented his story by adding children, with (1) Jesus taking a child, then (2) talking about people who cast out demons before (3) returning to causing the children (believers) to stumble in their belief. Luke then uses part 3, leaving us with the question what children is Luke talking about? Luke only makes sense if he is changing a source (Mark or your hypothetical M).

As for collusion, this is not required. Mark writes an allegory of Paul's teachings; Matthew 'corrects' Mark, hoping his text will replace Mark; Luke corrects both, hoping his text will replace Mark and Matthew; John 'corrects' all three. It is not until the need to combat Marcion's first canon that all four (and other works) are published as a second canon.

As is your counter argument, the original makes mistakes and is then corrected by the earlier gospels, only for Luke to copy the original mistakes. Not only do you have to presume a Q source existed, you also have to presume it had errors.

But if Luke is using Mark and Matthew as sources, we would expect fatigue without presuming anything. We know it happens.

Correct, fatigue should leave us with small errors, not large omissions. Luke not only made mistakes, he also added, edited or deleted text he did not need for his theological purpose.

Clement says Remember the words of Jesus our Lord: for He said "...", so he appears to be quoting an unknown text, just as he quotes the OT in other places in his letter. I doubt he was paraphrasing.

Good decision to move this, Harry. You both make excellent points and I enjoy your eisegesis. It aids my incorporation of relevant text, especially since realizing the importance of the Kabbala to advanced Jewish Mystics. KingCat also makes well-argued points, especially about the dynamics involved in the development and evolution of human memes like those represented in the spiritual fossil record. It is also somewhat supportive of my notion that a spiritual template influenced by but not controlled by God's consciousness is operating on the evolution of these memes over time.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

I have moved this post here as it is relevant here, not off topic.



No, the original did not have children. Mark invented his story by adding children, with (1) Jesus taking a child, then (2) talking about people who cast out demons before (3) returning to causing the children (believers) to stumble in their belief. Luke then uses part 3, leaving us with the question what children is Luke talking about? Luke only makes sense if he is changing a source (Mark or your hypothetical M).

As for collusion, this is not required. Mark writes an allegory of Paul's teachings; Matthew 'corrects' Mark, hoping his text will replace Mark; Luke corrects both, hoping his text will replace Mark and Matthew; John 'corrects' all three. It is not until the need to combat Marcion's first canon that all four (and other works) are published as a second canon.



As is your counter argument, the original makes mistakes and is then corrected by the earlier gospels, only for Luke to copy the original mistakes. Not only do you have to presume a Q source existed, you also have to presume it had errors.

But if Luke is using Mark and Matthew as sources, we would expect fatigue without presuming anything. We know it happens.



Correct, fatigue should leave us with small errors, not large omissions. Luke not only made mistakes, he also added, edited or deleted text he did not need for his theological purpose.



Clement says Remember the words of Jesus our Lord: for He said "...", so he appears to be quoting an unknown text, just as he quotes the OT in other places in his letter. I doubt he was paraphrasing.

I'll have a look at that point. It'll mean I'll have to consult the interlinear Bibles. I'll just say that 'Q' doesn't come into it here as that (as I use the term) relates only to material common to Matthew and Luke but not in Mark.

Clearly this millstone around the neck of little children (there are a few around here who could do with it ) is a basic synoptic passage common to all three and it's just that the extra bit 'children that believe in me' common to Mark and Matthew is either in whatever Luke based his gospel on - the original or Matthew - and he changed it (deliberately or through 'fatigue'), or Matthew and Mark added something more, not through collusion, but though having a gospel with additions, such as the Other feeding of 4,000 and the Syrio -phoenecian woman - what I call 'Decapolis material' but also in this quote from psalms on the cross which they both have. And there's a lot like that.

I was working out a collation of all that 'M' material, but I lost all my work, so I'm trying to get it fixed, but I'm having to do it all from memory here.

I don't believe that Matthew is based on Mark, because some genius poster here pointed out the difference between Mark and Matthew that had always puzzled me. Again one has to ask why Matthew didn't have Zebedee's helpers in the boat. Cut (or 'corrected') to save space? The Figtree business can be argued either way, but with Pilate's surprise, only in Mark, I see no good reason why Matthew would have cut (or 'corrected') that out and of course 'fatigue' wouldn't explain losing the whole passage. That's when this genius (I wish I could recall their names) made me realise that Mark had improved the text and that Matthew didn't copy those, which meant that he never saw them and Mark was not the original. Though in many ways, he's close to it. In other ways Luke uses the original as in not having the 2nd feeding of 4,000 and of course neither does John. I agree that the original (whether or not Mark as we have it or a 'proto' -Mark) is an 'allegory' of Paul, or as I see it, an adaptation of the original Jesus story (common to all four, whatever's left of it once to eliminate the contradictions) to reflect Pauline and also evolving Christian doctrine.

But anyway, the point in that you reckon Clement tells us what the original wording was and I'll look at that, because I'm always looking for any info that would challenge my pet theory...I just Love to be proven wrong

Get back to you.

[TRANSPONDER]

OK. It looks like this.

Mark 9 42. kai hos an skandalise (what a great word for 'cause to stumble' or some parsed it as 'ensnare') hena ton mikron touton ton pisteuronton eis eme
(and whover might cause to stumble ine of the little ones these believing in me..)

Matthew 18.4 Hos d'an skandalise hena ton mikron touton ron pisteuontonton (sic) eis eme.
(whoever then might cause to stumble one of the little ones of these believing in me..)

Luke 17.3 e hina skandalise ton mikron touton hena (....than that he should cause to stumble little ones these one..)

Matthew and Mark are virtually identical. Luke differs considerably and he could either represent what was there originally or be a complete rewrite on his part. But the words for 'these little ones' are the same in all three and must surely represent the original term.

Thus Clement can't have got his reading from any of these and if from another source, that source didn't get it from the synoptics. Slice it how you like, Clement must surely be reading the metaphorical meaning of the 'little ones' passage and paraphrasing it so as to make the theological meaning clear for his readers.

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

OK. It looks like this.

Mark 9 42. kai hos an skandalise (what a great word for 'cause to stumble' or some parsed it as 'ensnare') hena ton mikron touton ton pisteuronton eis eme
(and whover might cause to stumble ine of the little ones these believing in me..)

Matthew 18.4 Hos d'an skandalise hena ton mikron touton ron pisteuontonton (sic) eis eme.
(whoever then might cause to stumble one of the little ones of these believing in me..)

Luke 17.3 e hina skandalise ton mikron touton hena (....than that he should cause to stumble little ones these one..)

Matthew and Mark are virtually identical. Luke differs considerably and he could either represent what was there originally or be a complete rewrite on his part. But the words for 'these little ones' are the same in all three and must surely represent the original term.

Yes, Luke uses the term 'these little ones'. But if you only knew Luke (which was meant to replace the earlier gospels), you would have to ask what little ones? He does not introduce them in his gospel, so who is he talking about. We only know because of the other synoptics. Did they correct Luke and his strange error, or did Luke take a passage and modify it, but without taking the text where the earlier gospels introduced the children (fatigue)?

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Thus Clement can't have got his reading from any of these and if from another source, that source didn't get it from the synoptics.

True, but that is not my claim. 1 Clement is early, and was probably written before the gospels.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Slice it how you like, Clement must surely be reading the metaphorical meaning of the 'little ones' passage and paraphrasing it so as to make the theological meaning clear for his readers.

No, because Clement is quoting a text before the gospels were written. Mark then takes this text and uses it in two places.

1Clem 46:8
Remember the words of Jesus our Lord: for He said, Woe unto that man; it were good for him if he had not been born, ...

where Mark uses the green text almost exactly when writing about the betrayal of Jesus (although Clement is not talking about betrayal).

... rather than that at he should offend (σκανδαλίζω) one of Mine elect. It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about him, and be cast into the sea, than that he should pervert one of Mine elect.

where Mark uses this when writing about causing believers to stumble (Mark 9:42-50), but using children he has introduced a few verses before (Mark 9:36-37) (although Clement is not talking about children).

Then Matthew changes Mark (with the introduction and the warning as a united text), then Luke takes and modifies Mark 9:42-50, but forgets to include the first part where Mark actually introduces the children.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

Yes, Luke uses the term 'these little ones'. But if you only knew Luke (which was meant to replace the earlier gospels), you would have to ask what little ones? He does not introduce them in his gospel, so who is he talking about. We only know because of the other synoptics. Did they correct Luke and his strange error, or did Luke take a passage and modify it, but without taking the text where the earlier gospels introduced the children (fatigue)?

As I pointed out, Luke replicates exactly what little ones (the one that Jesus set in the midst of them) but splits it by some intervening material so it seems at first sight that he doesn't.

Luke 9.46 An argument started among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest. 47 Jesus, knowing their thoughts, took a little child and had him stand beside him. 48 Then he said to them, “Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. For it is the one who is least among you all who is the greatest.”
Luk 17:2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

True, but that is not my claim. 1 Clement is early, and was probably written before the gospels.


No, because Clement is quoting a text before the gospels were written. Mark then takes this text and uses it in two places.

1Clem 46:8
Remember the words of Jesus our Lord: for He said, Woe unto that man; it were good for him if he had not been born, ...

where Mark uses the green text almost exactly when writing about the betrayal of Jesus (although Clement is not talking about betrayal).

... rather than that at he should offend (σκανδαλίζω) one of Mine elect. It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about him, and be cast into the sea, than that he should pervert one of Mine elect.

where Mark uses this when writing about causing believers to stumble (Mark 9:42-50), but using children he has introduced a few verses before (Mark 9:36-37) (although Clement is not talking about children).

Then Matthew changes Mark (with the introduction and the warning as a united text), then Luke takes and modifies Mark 9:42-50, but forgets to include the first part where Mark actually introduces the children.

Yes, but if (as seems to be the case,) the gospels that we have are relatively late, then the earlier gospels, then an original synoptic version with just the little ones without the Mark/Matthew gloss 'who believe in me' could predate Clement who felt the need to explain what the term meant rather than what it said.