The statement “All Cretans are liars” comes from a line in the Epistle to Titus in the New Testament. Titus 1:12 reads:
“One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: ‘Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.’”
This line is attributed to a Cretan prophet named Epimenides. The apparent paradox is that if all Cretans are liars, and Epimenides is a Cretan, then this statement by Epimenides must be a lie.
This “liar’s paradox” has been the source of much philosophical debate over the years. Let’s take a closer look at the context and meaning of this passage:
The Context of Titus 1:12
The Epistle to Titus was written by the apostle Paul to advise his fellow missionary Titus on leading the church in Crete. In chapter 1, Paul is providing Titus guidance on appointing church elders. He emphasizes that these leaders must have integrity and not give in to deceitful teachings.
Verse 12 is part of Paul’s justification for why elders of integrity are so important in Crete. By quoting a Cretan prophet, he suggests that deceitfulness and false teaching are common problems among the Cretans. The reputation of Cretans for being dishonest people had become proverbial.
Paul seems to be using this quote as a rhetorical device to make a point, rather than stating it as a universal truth about all people from Crete. He is emphasizing that Titus needs to be discerning when choosing elders and not assume everyone is upright.
Meaning of the Paradox
At face value, the claim that “all Cretans are liars” is self-contradictory. If the claim is true, then the Cretan prophet Epimenides must be a liar, so we can’t trust his statement. But if the statement is a lie, then it’s false that all Cretans are liars.
Philosophers and logicians have proposed various resolutions to this paradox over the years. Here are a few of the main ways the paradox has been analyzed:
Not Intended as a Blanket Statement About All Cretans
As mentioned, Paul was likely quoting Epimenides as a generalization to make a rhetorical point. He didn’t necessarily intend it to be taken as a logically air-tight statement about every single Cretan.
Ancient writers often made sweeping claims about groups of people as figurative expressions to convey a sense of widespread tendencies. Paul was not framing this as a binding logical or theological premise.
Some Proposed Logical Resolutions
One logical resolution is that the statement is false – Epimenides may have been telling a lie about all Cretans being liars. This would resolve the paradox but leave open whether Cretans are more dishonest than other cultures.
Other proposed resolutions:
– Not all Cretans need to be liars 100% of the time – they could mix truth and falsehood. This would allow for Epimenides to be telling the truth about Cretans sometimes being liars.
– Qualify the statement to be about “most” Cretans rather than “all.” Then Epimenides could be telling the truth about the general tendency among Cretans to lie.
– State that Epimenides is exempting himself from the group of liars he is describing. But this contradicts the blanket statement about “all” Cretans.
– Argue that Epimenides is not a Cretan – he may have been born elsewhere but associated with Crete. This would avoid the contradiction of including himself in the group. However, most scholars believe he was Cretan.
In the end, it seems difficult to make logical sense of the blanket condemnation that all people from a specific region are entirely dishonest all the time. This generalizing statement probably should not be interpreted literally in the first place.
A Form of Self-Deprecating Humor
Rather than a logical paradox, some have characterized the quote as a form of self-deprecating humor common in ancient Greek culture. By playing up a negative stereotype about his own people, Epimenides could have been making a wry, ironic joke.
This fits with Paul’s rhetorical purpose in quoting him. As a Cretan himself, Epimenides pokes fun at his culture’s reputation for lying. This makes the quote memorable and humorous, even if not logically consistent.
Principles We Can Apply
When evaluating statements that seem contradictory or confusing, context is key. Rather than taking stand-alone quotes as absolute facts, we need to consider the original intent and purpose behind them.
Here are some principles that can help:
Recognize Exaggeration for Effect
Blanket stereotypes of entire people groups should not necessarily be taken literally. Hyperbole is often used to emphasize tendencies or make a point.
Focus on Intended Meaning
It’s unlikely Epimenides meant his statement as an air-tight logical truth claim. Paul was more interested in the general idea of Cretans having a reputation for dishonesty. We shouldn’t get bogged down in the literal semantics.
Look for Nuance
Few things are absolute – be wary of blanket condemnations of whole demographics. Reality is complex, and statements are seldom true “all” or “none” of the time.
Consider Historical Context
Each biblical text had an original intent and purpose. To properly understand any passage, we need to study the contextual background and literary style.
Focus on Big Picture Themes
Paradoxes and details shouldn’t distract from the main themes. Paul’s key point was that integrity matters for church leaders – a timeless principle for Christians today.
While intriguing, the Cretan paradox should not be over-interpreted. By studying the context and intent, we can discern the essential truths Scripture aims to convey. The Bible ultimately calls us to greater wisdom, integrity and discernment – starting with sound leaders modeled after Jesus.