The Epimenides Paradox

Titus 1:12-13

Context: The Apostle Paul is writing to Titus, a fellow minister. Here he is addressing ministerial difficulties that Titus will encounter on the island of Crete.

12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; [Italics mine]

Note the statements: "One of themselves [a Cretian or Cretan; person from the island of Crete in the Mediterranean Sea] has said, 'The Cretians are always liars.'" Paul then states: "This witness is true." [What the Cretian said is true].

This is called the Epimenides Paradox. It is a problem of logic, another form of the popular liar paradox.

Epimenides was a Cretan philosopher and poet from Knossos who lived about 600 BC. He was considered a national prophet. None of his works have survived, and are known only from quotations by other authors and the New Testament.

Against the general sentiment of Crete, Epimenides proposed that Zeus was immortal, as in the following poem, of which only one quatrain survives:

They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high one
The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!
But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever,
For in thee we live and move and have our being.
-Epimenides, Cretica

It is from this poem, Cretica, that the Apostle Paul quotes. Now, here is the problem stated in logical form:

A Cretan said, "All Cretans are liars." The Apostle Paul declares that what the Cretan has said is true.

If, as Paul affirms, this statement is true, then the statement is false because a Cretan, who is always a liar, made it.

These affirmations - that the statement is true and the statement is false - contradict each other and violate the Law of Non-Contradiction, because a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time. The law of non-contradiction states, in the words of Aristotle, that "one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time."

The obvious conclusion for many (read: all non-Christian apologists and even some "Christians") is that the Epimenides Paradox clearly shows a Bible contradiction. From this it follows that Paul, at least on this occasion, could not have been writing under the guidance of God (i.e. he was not inspired), since God is perfect and Paul "made a mistake."

So, the argument is that such a "mistake" could not have taken place if the author was truly inspired, and it must be noted here that this example is often cited when the apologist is attempting to show that the Bible cannot be the inspired word of God, or at least consists of text that is at best "corrupted."

My Scenario for Bible believers: A member of another religion or a non-believer has challenged your beliefs on the basis of a contradiction found in Titus 1:12-13. The claim is made that the Bible is not the inspired word of God, therefore the foundation of your entire system of doctrines and practices is not reliable.

How do you defend the faith against this objection? I can say with certainty that it takes some time and research. I recently posed this question via email to many (many) fellow Christians, and only two responded. Of the two, one happens to be a professor of logic! So, by the silence, I assume there is a difficulty here.

How I solved the problem to my satisfaction

The problem of the Epimenides Paradox, inasmuch as it pertains to a "Bible contradiction" is easily solved. However, it must be noted that the logical problem presented cannot be solved BUT - it does not have to be solved in order to defeat the suggestion of Biblical error.

First, one must consider that the science of logic is absent from the context. Paul is not engaged in a discussion of logic (of which he was undeniably a master).

Second, we must consider Paul is quoting from a poem, and he knew it; he was not citing Scripture, but literature of a past day. The rules of logic should not be applied to Paul's quote because the poet is using a literary technique called hyperbole. Hyperbole is a figure of speech that is a grossly exaggerated description or statement.

To say that all Cretians are liars is a grossly exaggerated description or statement, clearly a poetic device that is not absolutely true, but is true of how the author felt about the Cretian society in general. Also, there can be no real doubt that Epimenides clearly meant to exclude himself from his observation.

How many religious figures stand in front of a crowd of believers and proclaim, "This country has fallen far away from (insert the name of a deity here.)"? Clearly the speaker does not intend to include himself or his people in the observation, but his observation is directed toward the country in general. To translate the observation logically, it would either have to be "All people in this country..." or "Some people in this country..." Clearly, the speaker has chosen "all" for the effect he wants his message to have on his people. It might be argued here that such speaking in itself is hyperbolic!

As I attempted to solve the Epimenides Paradox, I discovered a statement that perfectly sums up my own conclusions: "When viewed in the light of hyperbole, there is no logical paradox found in Titus 1:12. Epimenides had made a hyperbolic statement regarding the conduct of the people of Crete, and Paul was agreeing with him in order to point out to Titus the difficulty facing the Cretan elders."

The author (who I cannot name because I failed to note the source) continued, "Paul was not affirming a contradiction, but following a common literary convention."

Another Possible Solution

The Greek word translated as "always" [the Cretians are always] is the word aei. It means always, ever, regularly, and earnestly [Strong's Greek Dictionary]. Paul's (Epimenides') thought could easily be translated as "The Cretians are regularly (habitual) liars." This rendering would likewise solve any problem related to logic.

Conclusion

I realize that one year of logic classes do not make me a logician. With this in mind, is anything I have written here true? Ultimately, no one can say with absolute certainty. I will note in conclusion that forcing the science of logic onto the verse without taking the context into account would seem to constitute a misinterpretation of the Scripture. I will also note that absolute certainty is not necessary to defend a position. All that is necessary is to show that another interpretation is possible. I feel that this has been accomplished.

current projects   I   links   I   about
web award   I   free stuff   I   webmaster   I   permissions

Created With MS Paint.exe & Notepad.exe
© Ruinedmetropolis.com 2006-2008, All rights reserved.