Erkki Koskenniemi, «The Famous Liar and the Apostolic Truth» filologia-neotestamentaria, Vol. 24 (2011) 59-69 page 69

Vol 24 (2011)

Erkki Koskenniemi, «The Famous Liar and the Apostolic Truth», Vol. 24 (2011) 59-69

The words Kretes aei pseustai, kaka theria, gasteres argai. in Tit 1:2 are traditionally attributed to Epimenides, and, for example, Nestle – Aland27 (ad locum) refers to his work “de oraculis / peri kresmon”. However, we can only discern a shadow of the man, a pre-Socratic philosopher, or of several men. We do not have his works, and a work peri kresmon is never mentioned in ancient sources. Clement of Alexandria mentions Epimenides, but not his work; Jerome is the first who certainly attributes the work to Epimenides. This article proposes a new reconstruction of the history of the tradition. In the beginning was the proverb that the Cretans were famous liars, and in the second stage, this reputation was used to construct a logical paradox. In the next stage, Epimenides, the famous Cretan philosopher, was involved in the paradox. It is thus not correct to claim that Tit refers to Epimenides’ work peri kresmon: Epimenides is only ahistorically involved in this paradox. Consequently, the verse does not prove that the writer knew Classical literature well.

TAGS

Page 69/69
«
‹
69

The Famous Liar and the Apostolic Truth 69 as Martialis calls Catullus a vates (Verona docti syllabas amat vatis, Mart. 1,61,1). Whatever the line was, it is verse, and a poet is a prophet. Thirdly, if the writer – what I doubt – indeed was able to connect Epi- menides with the verse, several writers attribute supernatural skills to Epimenides. Plato (Leges 1,642d) and Diogenes Laertius (1,114) say that he prophesied; Aristotle said that Epimenides μαντεύετο, although not on future but on unclear events (Rhet. 3,17 1418; cf. Apul. Apol. 27), and Diogenes Laertius attributed to him the healing of pestilence in Athens (1,110; cf. Plutarch Mor. 820d; cf. Maximus of Tyrus, diss. 10). There was also a tradition, that Epimenides slept several decades of years, and received a gift of prophecy (Diog. Laert. 1,109; Scholia ad Lucianum 25,6). According to Pausanias (2,21,3) the Spartans killed him because he refused to prophecy. If that is the correct explanation, the word “prophet” does prove that the writer knew the tradition. However, such a positive evaluation of a Gentile diviner is not likely, although Clemens already interpreted the verse so (Str. 1,14,59). Conclusion Apparently the quotation is proverbial and the writer – well aware of the logical problem – considers the content of the verse to be excellent though deeper conclusions are hazardous. To connect it with the his- torical Epimenides requires a lot of credulity, and we have no reason to believe that the writer ever saw the alleged work Χρησμοί of Epimenides. Consequently, although this quotation may reveal a missionary skill, it does not prove that the writer was well aware of the Classical literary tradition. Erkki KOSKENNIEMI (Åbo Akademi University, Turku) Ristakalliontie 20 SF 38100 Sastamala FINLAND erkki.koskenniemi@sley.fi 48 HOLTZ, Die Pastoralbriefe, 213; MERKEL, Die Pastoralbriefe, 94.