64 Erkki Koskenniemi claim. We have fragments of Epimenides since Aristotle26, but we do not know enough of Epimenides to define his works27. The Quotation We thus do not know much about Epimenides or his works, and it must be asked, why the verse is identified and attributed to him. As said above, Jerome mentions a work Liber Oraculorum or Oracula, but he was not the first Christian writer who tried to identify the verse. Clem- ent of Alexandria28 mentions Epimenides as one among seven sages, οὗ μέμνηται ὁ ἀπόστολος Παῦλος ἐν τῇ πρὸς Τίτον ἐπιστολῇ (Str. 1,14,59). It is important to observe what Clement says and what he does not. He does not say that the quotation originates from Epimenides’ work: He only says that the person referred to was in his view Epimenides29. Clem- ent does not refer to any source, whether directly or indirectly. Moreover, it is interesting that Athenagoras (Suppl. 30,3) and then Origenes (Orig. c. Cels. 3,43) do not mention Epimenides, but refer to verses from Cal- limachus’ In Jovem, which are partly identical with the words in Tit: Ζεῦ, σὲ μὲν ’Ιδαίοισιν ἐν οὔρεσι φασι γενέσθαι Ζεῦ, σὲ δ' ἐν ’Αρκαδίῃ· πότεροι, πάτερ, ἐψεύσαντο; Κρῆτες ἀεὶ ψεῦσται· καὶ γὰρ τάφον, ὦ ἄνα, σεῖο Κρῆτες ἐτεκτήσαντο· σὺ δ' οὐ θάνες, ἐσσὶ γὰρ αἰει (In Jovem 6-9). John Chrysostomus mentions both Epimenides and Callimachus, but 25 QUINN, The Letter to Titus, 108. 26 ZIMMER is perhaps too critical in his good article (esp. “Die Lügner-Antinomie in Titus 1,12”, 81). The fragments in Aristotle witness that the early tradition was aware of Epimenides’ works. However, ZIMMER’s criticism against scholars, who speak freely of Epimenides’ works, is undoubtedly justified. 27 G.L. HUXLEY was bold enough to first assume a tension between the historical Epimenides and Delphi and to then attribute the line to Epimenides’ Delphic opponents (Greek Epic Poetry from Eumelos to Panyassis [Cambridge, Ma. 1969]), 80–84. The fantas- tic reconstruction does not observe how little we know about the historical man, and it is astonishing that it is uncritically accepted: G.M. LEE found it “very plausible” in his short bibliographical note (“Epimenides in the Epistle to Titus (I 12)”, Novum Testamentum 22 [1980] 96) and QUINN still presents the hypothesis and seems to consider it probable (The Letter to Titus, 108). 28 QUINN considers Clement’s identification early (“as early as Clement of Alexandria ... this hexameter was attributed to Epimenides of Crete ..., The Letter to Titus,107). It is true that the comment is early within the early Christian literature; on the other hand, compared with the date of the historical Epimenides, the centuries between the two works are numerous. 29 ZIMMER, “Die Lügner-Antinomie in Titus 1,12”, 80.