Epimenides Paradox
“For there are many insubordinate men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially the circumcision party; they must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for base gain what they have no right to teach. One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, ‘Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.’ This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, instead of giving heed to Jewish myths or to commands of men who reject the truth” (Titus 1:10 – 14).
This text is famous for causing all kinds of logical debate: if all Cretans are liars, then how can it be said that a Cretan’s testimony is true? The Cretan in question is Epimenides, which is why this is normally known as the Epimenides paradox. The paradox of course does not come from Epimenides himself, but from Paul’s use of Epimenides, and some people have used it to suggest a problem with Paul, and therefore, with Scripture. How is one to answer it?
It’s not really that difficult a problem. By saying all Cretans are liars, one is not saying they are always lying. Therefore, even if all Cretans, including Epimenides, are liars, this does not mean they would have to be lying in any given statement, but rather, that they are known to tell lies. Indeed, liars often tell the truth as a means of encouraging trust. On the other hand, it should be obvious that the statement itself is a rhetorical flourish, and of the kind Paul is known to use. For example, when he says “all have sinned” (Rom 3:22) this all is an exclusive all which obviously does not include Jesus; in the same way one must understand Epimenides’ statement is intended to be read exclusive of himself, even in Paul’s use of him. Thus, if one wanted to read it as indicating some sort of universal condemnation of Cretans by pointing out that all they say is a lie, Epimenides could be said to be the “exception which proves the rule.”
But, if one looks to the context of Epimenides’ statement, new questions arise. According to St John Chrysostom, it is from a poem written about a supposed tomb of Jupiter which the Cretans proclaimed – and so Epimenides is saying Cretans are liars because they declare Jupiter to be dead. Now if Paul agrees with this testimony, does it mean that Jupiter is alive? That, again, is what St John Chrysostom asks – and where he points out a different kind of paradox here. If his testimony is true, then Jupiter must be alive. “For if the poet is true who said that they spoke falsely, in asserting that Jupiter could die, as the Apostle says, it is a fearful thing! Attend, beloved, with much exactness. The poet said that the Cretans were liars for saying that Jupiter was dead. The Apostle confirmed his testimony: so, according to the Apostle, Jupiter is immortal: for he says, ‘this witness is true”! What shall we say then?’”[1]
However, we must look at what Paul is saying further. He is talking about the falsehood of myth. Does Epimenides’ statement have to suggest that Jupiter is alive? By no means. If there is no Jupiter, then the tomb would be a lie, not because Jupiter did not die, but because there was no Jupiter to be buried there. In this way, again, Paul can agree with Epimenides, believing the Cretans lied (and so his testimony is true) without agreeing with the reason behind such a claim (just because someone gets a right conclusion does not mean their reason for that conclusion is correct).
But this gets us back to the rhetorical point behind Paul’s words. He is not indicating Cretans are liars all the time, but rather, that they have, as St John Chrysostom puts it, “a habit of falsehood.”[2] Agreeing that they have the tendency to lie is not much of a claim, but it is, of course, useful for Paul’s rhetorical flourish. When reading Paul, one must not look at his words as propositions – the problem with “propositional logic” is that the words used in the propositions can easily be made to contradict what the words are signifying; instead one must look at Paul as pointing to something which transcends the limitations of his words. To argue from Paul using his words for a literalistic propositional point is to fail to understand Paul. Indeed, this is what Paul wanted us to know when he said, “ Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not in a written code but in the Spirit; for the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2Cor 3:5-6).
Footnotes
[1] St John Chrysostom, Homily III on Titus in NPNF1(13):528.
[2] Ibid., 528.
Comments are closed.
Brilliant exposition! Thank you.
Very nice. I like the way you put that.
I would add to that saying the Epimenedes Paradox, also called the Liars Paradox, has a particular logical form that is relevant here. It can be reformulated as follows:
“This statement is false.
The above statement is true.”
The first statement is understood to refer to itself. So if it is true, it is false. On the other hand, if it is false, then it is true.
The solution, of course, is to point out the problems with self-referential statements and reject out of hand that the paradox actually means anything.
As you have pointed out, Henry, Paul uses this as rhetoric and not as an exercise in the study of logic. On another level, however, this reveals an interesting fact about Epimenides and pagan myth. Epimenides took issue with the idea that Jupiter died. He took an essentially meaningless proposition, “Jupiter died.” and took a side regarding the truth or falsehood of that proposition. As you have pointed out, the correct answer is to reject the proposition outright as being problematic in and of itself. There is no pagan God Jupiter, and so to say he died or not is to completely miss the reality of the situation, just as to argue whether “This statement is true.” is true or false is to miss the point entirely. It is not a true or false statement, but a fake statement, one that masquerades as having a truth-value, but is completely without one, and as Jupiter is a fake.
We as sinners go about our lives pursuing things that are, not false, but fake. And so Paul goes on to say “They claim to know God, but by their deeds they deny him.” (Tit 1:16) As sinners, we tend to pursue the fake, and as Christians we should pursue what is real, the ultimate in Reality, God who is Love Incarnate. And so Paul then goes on in the next chapter to instruct us in how to avoid the fake and pursue the real. He then concludes with a description of what is real, saying
” But when the kindness and generous love of God our savior appeared,
5
not because of any righteous deeds we had done but because of his mercy, he saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the holy Spirit,
6
whom he richly poured out on us through Jesus Christ our savior,
7
so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life.” (Tit 3:4-7)
Thanks Doug and Digby. Whether or not we agree in other areas, it is always good when we can find some points in agreement, and perhaps those should be highlighted to help keep our discussions in charity? It’s hard, to be sure, and of course there are real concerns and issues — but all three of us can appreciate Paul here, and that should stand as a point of common ground.
Doug — you are right, sin seeks to after what is unreal, and to support an unreality over God’s purpose. Very much the issue behind so many debates imo.
Now what about the evil beasts and lazy glutton parts? We moderns are so on the lookout for racial prejudice that perhaps we are willing to contradict Paul and God rather than seem to be prejudiced. But are all ethnic groups drawn to the exact same sins in the exact same proportions. Paul and Scripture are saying no and Scripture and Christ (“this people honors me with their lips but their heart is far from me”) make remarks about His own people that by modern standards would be called prejudice in some courts of this world.
Grey,
Er, who is contradicting Paul? And what has my post, quoting St John Chrysostom and discussing medieval questions, have to do with being modern?
So you are ok with the Cretans being evil beasts and lazy gluttons then…because you did not answer that question?
Grey areas [aka bill bannon] you are not making yourself clear.
Henry
Do you see God and the inspired writer as seeing Cretans as evil beasts and lazy gluttons in Paul’s affirming under the brunt of inspiration that they are announcing”This statement is true”…and gives what should follow in the Christian preacher from that “rebuke them sharply” which would be unnecessary if they are simply pretty good people in general.
I ask because you eliminated “always” even after you had just quoted the classical text as saying always….. you: “By saying all Cretans are liars, one is not saying they are always liars.” But the text had just stated that they were always liars and not simply about the tomb issue. Ironically in all this Chrysostom actually took the generalities about the Jews literally in an exceptionless sense
himself and one can easily google the anti semitical sermons of Chrysostom which fortunately seem not to be repeated in virulence by any other famous saint after him.
Bill
Once again, there are many ways to read the adjective always — what is being described as always? Are they lying all the time? Always? No; again the issue is of a rhetorical flourish, nothing else. They are “always liars” in the sense that “everyone is a liar.” It doesn’t say they are always lying. And we can go on if you want to discuss “evil beasts” and “gluttons” as also being rhetorical if you wish. What do you not get about “rhetorical” as not being a proposition? I could have gone further and said, “What is this” in the “this testimony” — ie., the fact that a Cretan said it? His words? What? There are many possible answers even there. But I do think Paul is saying there is something true within the rhetorical flourish, and he is right, but it is not had according to the literalistic propositional form of “truth gathering” we have developed the past few centuries.
Bill but now I have polished up the text to reflect what I meant better, if it helps. “they are always lying” vs “always liars,” since it is a bit unclear otherwise, though I think most figured it out. Thanks for that nonetheless.
Hmmm…I would only urge you as time goes by in your meditations to ask whether your concept of “rhetorical” actually removes too much negative meaning. At one time in the business world involving a good deal of money, an Indian woman took me for a ride of manipulation for days based on lies that I will never forget and have never seen in western customers. At the end of her tricks, we were on the phone and I yelled at her and told her never to return to our business or if she did, to assume that she must divest herself of the lying and blackmail. I was furious and let her know what I thought of her. From the other end of the phone came these words with perfect calmness: “Put the order in…now we know you have done your best…put the order in…the check is in the mail and you will have no more trouble from us again.” I got off the phone and told the listening manager at the time that against all rules, I was going our for two drinks and that the hostages in Iran would be released at the last minute. He burst out laughing. The Indian woman deliberately lied for days of negotiation then canceled but not really the whole deal… with the intent of monitoring my anger which was to her the only proof that I was seeking a better deal for her behind the scenes with the president of the company in question.
Same part of the world…the Shiites are allowed to lie for Islam and have a word for it…taqiyya …
http://www.meforum.org/2095/islams-doctrines-of-deception
What I am saying in regard to the Pauline passage is that it may in that part of the world be less rhetorical than you might be thinking.
Peace.
Absolutely different cultures are drawn to different sins. There is nothing racist in that assertion.