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.