Cretans always lie, said the Cretan

by euripides 29 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  euripides

  Titus 1:12,13 from the NASB

  One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons." This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;

  Does the author of Titus not just get the paradox here, or the intended one, or is this a case of PseudoPauline hyperbole?

  The paradox is easy; credited to Epimenides, it goes,

  1. Epimenides is a Cretan.

  2. Epimenides states, "All Cretans are liars."

  "On the face of it, this appears to be a paradox. Epimenides, being a Cretan, must either be a liar or a truth-teller. Thus his statement must be either true or false. But if it's true, then he (being a Cretan) must be a liar, so the statement can't be true. On the other hand, his statement is false, then he can't be a liar, so the statement must be true. This is a paradox." from http://david.tribble.com/text/liar.htm

  Of course, the same web page shows an interesting solution to the paradox, but notwithstanding, either the author of Titus does not understand this paradox or is using an unusual hyperbole to make a point, or, more strangely, understands the solution to the "paradox."

  I thought of this when we were discussing outside sources quoted as prophecy or inspired text. Is Epimenides inspired? How did this paradox sneak in?

  I would like to know your opinion as to whether the author of Titus does or does not understand the paradox, and your speculation on what impact such a text being quoted in a pseudepigraphical epistle of the early second century would have had on the fledgling churches. Perhaps it reveals the "Hellenistic gulf," between that which were imports from Hellenistic thought and that which was Eastern in origin. I would contend that the real Paul would have grasped the paradox, but that the author of Titus apparently does not. Could this be a clue into the situs of the composition of Titus?
• 

  googlemagoogle

  i believe the writer simply didn't understand it. he probably came from a background not knowing the obvious paradox - and thought, a statement like this would come in handy. must have been a juicy titbit for the philosophers back then...
  
  personally i'm not satisfied with the solution offered at your link. it might be logic, but it aint logic... ;-)
• 

  mysterio91

  1. Epimenides is a Cretan.

  2. Epimenides states, "All Cretans are liars."

  This may be off track from what you were looking for in a response, but I like this statement. It's labeled a paradox only because people will always make an assumption. Proving the statement false does not prove that all Cretans tell the truth. Most people read the statement thinking that the word "liars" is the variable. I think it's more reasonable to conclude the word "all" is the variable.

  This principle is what makes religion and bible interpretation so hard to discuss. "The Bible is the word of God". What part of that statement is the variable?
• 

  czarofmischief

  While it is attributed to that epi-dude, maybe it was a current saying that was USED to point out the nature of a paradox, rather than being invented to demonstrate paradox? Wouldn't necessarily make the writer of Titus a liar or an uneducated fool...

  CZAR
• 

  euripides

  Hi Googlemagoogle,

  Well, I see your point, but the essence is just that Epimenides' statement MUST BE FALSE from a logical perspective. It is not a real paradox, only it can't be true so long as their is even only one truthful Cretan, and that would be Epimenides according to the author of Titus! This isn't the first time there is a logical inconsistency in the Biblical texts. Consider the words ascribed to Jesus at John 15:19:

  "If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you."

  Let W represent you are part of the world, Let L represent the world Loves you.

  the first part of the statement says, If W ----------> L; the second half says If NOT W --------------> NOT L. Put simply, that is indefensible logically. If I said If I hit a glass with a hammer, then it will break, it does not lead to the conclusion that If I don't hit a glass with a hammer, it won't break, because it could break for another reason. THe only thing demonstrable is the contrapositive, which would be, If a glass is not broken, I did not hit it with a hammer. Thus the contrapositive of Jesus' purported statement would be, If the world does not love you, then you are not part of the world. Yet the second half of the verse seems to suggest that the world hates you because of your not being a part of it. That is backwards. We only know the result, or consequence when you are not loved, because that must mean you are no part of the world. The verse seems to trip over itself midsentence in its illogic. And, as you say, the author of Titus thought he was pretty slick, probably, also, only to create a necessarily false assertion.

  No one ever said wisdom ascribed to Jesus or Paul had to be logical, did they? Worldly wisdom anyway....
• 

  Leolaia

  "On the face of it, this appears to be a paradox. Epimenides, being a Cretan, must either be a liar or a truth-teller. Thus his statement must be either true or false. But if it's true, then he (being a Cretan) must be a liar, so the statement can't be true. On the other hand, his statement is false, then he can't be a liar, so the statement must be true. This is a paradox."

  There should be room for hyperbole in rhetorical writing, so the paradox idea is a little forced. Some related issues would appear to be: the quantification scope of aei "always," whether "Cretans" should be understood as "All Cretans" (could the unquantified "Cretans" simply mean "most Cretans always lie", thereby getting Epimenides off the hook), and whether there would be any difference in meaning had pas "all" been used to quantify "Cretans" instead of the predicate aei, or if both were used. The matter may be a little more subtle.
• 

  czarofmischief

  I solved it!

  The word that matters is "always". If the Cretan is lying, not about Cretans lying, but that they always lie - and therefore is really saying they sometimes tell the truth.

  He could straightforwardly lie that Cretans "always" lie - and not be telling the truth, since Cretans occasionally tell the truth.

  Get it?

  Bible 1, Materialists 0

  CZAR
• 

  frankiespeakin

  I'm sorry if I repeat any one comments I haven't read but a few.

  1. Epimenides is a Cretan.

  2. Epimenides states, "All Cretans are liars."

  Epimenides is a liar and a Creatan (but he's not a lair all the time)
• 

  Leolaia

  frankiespeakin....My comment was that "All Cretans are liars" is not what Epimenides appears to have been saying. "Cretans [are] always liars" is what the verse actually says. This would put the universal quantification in the predicate (with aei being adverbial) rather than over the subject. So my question really was....are these both logically equivalent, or is there a difference? Could an unquantified "Cretans" be understood as not necessarily universal, or less explicitly universal than "All Cretans," with "Cretans" being modified with pas "all"? That is, could an unquantified subject allow for some exceptions, e.g. "Cretans [understood to mean, sterotypical Cretans] are always liars, etc." Even if not the case, there should still be room for both irony (at a more literal reading) and hyperbole (at a more rhetorical reading).
• 

  frankiespeakin

  I'm more inclined to think Cretan as steriotype for liar,,that may manifest a fear of strangers. (Intuitively)

  And that the verse are ment to be a paradox and so yes the other rendering:

  "Cretans [are] always liars"

  With cretan being a steriotype for both constant liars and some foreiner they fear or are suspicious of.