Titus 1:12

An Exegetical Study of Titus 1:12-13

This exegetical study of Titus 1:12-13 is based on a b-greek discussion from Tue Dec 8 22:33:55 2009. The initial query sought to identify the specific classical Greek source for the poetic quotation found in Titus 1:12, particularly the line beginning with Κρῆτες ἀεὶ ψεῦσται. The inquiry notes a common attribution to Callimachus’ ‘Hymn to Zeus’ but requests verification and further scholarly resources.

The central exegetical issue under examination revolves around the grammatical and rhetorical interpretation of Titus 1:13a (Ἡ μαρτυρία αὕτη ἐστὶν ἀληθής). Specifically, the discussion probes whether this clause should be understood as a straightforward declarative statement (“This testimony is true”) or as a rhetorical interrogative (“Is this testimony true?” or “Isn’t this testimony true?!”). This question opens a broader inquiry into the Epistle writer’s intent, encompassing the potential use of irony, the cultural context and reputation of Cretans, and how this affirmation or question connects to the subsequent instruction for sharp rebuke (v. 13b). Furthermore, the implications of the “liar’s paradox” (if a Cretan says “Cretans are always liars,” is the statement true or false?) are explored as a potential interpretive lens for the passage.

Εἶπέν τις ἐξ αὐτῶν ἴδιος αὐτῶν προφήτης·
Κρῆτες ἀεὶ ψεῦσται, κακὰ θηρία, γαστέρες ἀργαί.
Ἡ μαρτυρία αὕτη ἐστὶν ἀληθής.
δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν ἔλεγχε αὐτοὺς ἀποτόμως, ἵνα ὑγιαίνωσιν ἐν τῇ πίστει,

Greek text (Nestle 1904)

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• Nestle 1904 uses a colon (:) after προφήτης in v. 12, indicating a direct quotation. SBLGNT (2010) uses a comma (,). This is a minor orthographical difference without significant impact on meaning.
• No other substantive textual variants are commonly noted between Nestle 1904 and SBLGNT (2010) for Titus 1:12-13 in the major critical apparatus.

Textual Criticism (NA28), Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG)

The Greek text of Titus 1:12-13 is generally stable across major critical editions, including the Nestle-Aland 28 (NA28). There are no significant textual variants that alter the meaning of the passage. Minor differences primarily concern punctuation, such as the use of a colon versus a comma after προφήτης in v. 12.

Lexical analysis of key terms provides insight into the passage’s meaning:

• προφήτης (prophētēs): In a Greco-Roman context, this term could refer to a poet, sage, diviner, or inspired speaker, not necessarily a prophet in the biblical sense. The phrase “one of their own prophets” (ἴδιος αὐτῶν προφήτης) suggests a figure recognized within Cretan culture. (BDAG, s.v. “προφήτης” 1; KITTEL, s.v. “προφήτης” 4.A.4).
• ψεῦσται (pseustai): “Liars.” This is the core accusation in the Cretan proverb and directly relates to the concept of truth (ἀληθής) in v. 13a. (BDAG, s.v. “ψεύστης”).
• κακὰ θηρία (kaka thēria): “Evil beasts” or “wild animals.” The discussion highlights a potential ironic layer here, as Crete was reputedly free of wild beasts. This suggests a metaphorical understanding, characterizing the Cretans themselves as savage or unruly in their behavior. (BDAG, s.v. “θηρίον”; KITTEL, s.v. “θηρίον” 1.B).
• γαστέρες ἀργαί (gasteres argai): “Lazy bellies.” This idiom describes individuals who are gluttonous, indolent, or unproductive, literally “idle bellies.” (BDAG, s.v. “ἀργός”).
• μαρτυρία (martyria): “Testimony” or “witness.” This term refers to the preceding quotation from the Cretan “prophet.” (BDAG, s.v. “μαρτυρία”).
• ἀληθής (alēthēs): “True.” This adjective is central to the debate regarding the interpretation of v. 13a, determining whether the writer is affirming the truthfulness of the Cretan proverb. (BDAG, s.v. “ἀληθής”).
• ἔλεγχε (elegche): “Rebuke,” “convict,” “reprove.” This is an imperative verb, indicating a direct command to Titus. (BDAG, s.v. “ἐλέγχω”).
• ἀποτόμως (apotomōs): “Sharply,” “severely,” “sternly.” This adverb modifies ἔλεγχε, emphasizing the decisive and uncompromising nature of the required rebuke. (BDAG, s.v. “ἀποτόμως”).
• ἵνα ὑγιαίνωσιν ἐν τῇ πίστει (hina hygiainōsin en tē pistei): “In order that they may be sound in the faith” or “healthy in the faith.” This is a purpose clause, outlining the desired outcome of Titus’s stern correction. ὑγιαίνωσιν (from ὑγιαίνω) can refer to physical health but is commonly used metaphorically in the Pastoral Epistles for soundness in doctrine and life, contrasting with “unhealthy” teachings. (BDAG, s.v. “ὑγιαίνω”).

Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis

The primary point of divergence in interpreting Titus 1:13a is whether Ἡ μαρτυρία αὕτη ἐστὶν ἀληθής functions as a declarative statement or a rhetorical question. Traditionally, it is understood as a declarative affirmation, meaning the writer of the Epistle to Titus concurs with the Cretan prophet’s assessment of his countrymen. This interpretation provides a direct justification for the sharp rebuke commanded in v. 13b: because the characterization of Cretans as liars, evil beasts, and lazy bellies is “true,” Titus must address these behaviors sternly.

However, the discussion also explores the possibility of an interrogative or ironic reading. Grammatically, Greek can express rhetorical questions without explicit interrogative particles, relying on context or intonation (which is lost in written text). A rhetorical question like “Is this testimony true?!” or “Isn’t this testimony true?!” would leverage the famous “liar’s paradox,” which was well-known in ancient Greek logic. The paradox arises from a Cretan stating, “Cretans are always liars”: if the statement is true, then the Cretan is lying, making the statement false; if the statement is false, then the Cretan is telling the truth, making the statement true. This self-defeating paradox, as scholars like Anthony Thiselton suggest, may invite the reader to view the “claim” from another angle, highlighting the complex nature of truth, especially when tied to the speaker’s life and actions.

The inclusion of κακὰ θηρία also hints at irony. Historical accounts (e.g., Pliny, Plutarch) suggest Crete was noted for its *lack* of wild beasts. If the author was aware of this, the phrase might ironically label the Cretans themselves as the “wild beasts” of the island, lending further support to a non-literal or ironic reading of the prophet’s statement. Furthermore, the cultural context of Cretans claiming Zeus’s tomb on their island, thereby reducing a god to mortality, could underpin their reputation for deceit (as noted by Callimachus), suggesting a deeper theological irony.

If v. 13a is indeed ironic or rhetorical, it performs a different function. It would not merely endorse a stereotype but use it as a meta-statement about self-defeating language. The implication would be that words, even seemingly true ones, lack “operative currency” unless backed by a blameless life. This aligns with the epistle’s broader injunction for sound doctrine (ὑγιαίνωσιν ἐν τῇ πίστει) and a lifestyle that validates the church’s witness. The connection to Titus 1:2, which speaks of “the God who does not lie” (ὁ ἀψευδὴς θεός), suggests a strong contrast between divine truthfulness and human deceit, particularly that of the Cretans, potentially underscoring the irony of a Cretan calling other Cretans liars while the “God who does not lie” stands in stark opposition.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

The exegesis of Titus 1:12-13 reveals a complex interplay of cultural context, rhetorical strategy, and theological purpose. While a straightforward declarative reading of v. 13a remains common, the arguments for irony or a rhetorical interrogative offer a richer, more nuanced understanding that aligns well with the epistle’s emphasis on genuine faith and conduct. The “liar’s paradox” and the metaphorical use of “evil beasts” suggest that the writer may be engaging with the Cretan saying in a sophisticated manner, using it not merely to confirm a stereotype but to expose the inherent contradictions of deceitful speech and to underscore the importance of integrity, particularly for those who claim faith.

Considering the available evidence and the arguments presented, the following translation suggestions offer different emphases:

1. “One of their own prophets, a Cretan, once said, ‘Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.’ This testimony is true! For this reason, you must sharply rebuke them, so that they may be sound in the faith.”
   This translation adopts a declarative, emphatic reading of v. 13a, suggesting the writer unequivocally affirms the truth of the Cretan proverb, which then directly justifies the need for severe correction. The exclamation mark adds a sense of strong agreement or exasperation.
2. “One of their own prophets, a Cretan, once said, ‘Cretans are always liars, savage beasts, idle bellies.’ And isn’t that testimony true?! For this reason, sharply rebuke them, so that they may be healthy in their faith.”
   This translation interprets v. 13a as a rhetorical question, implicitly affirming the proverb’s truth through an ironic or exasperated tone. It acknowledges the complexity of the “liar’s paradox” while still providing a basis for the subsequent instruction to rebuke. The nuance of “savage beasts” and “idle bellies” emphasizes the metaphorical nature of the insults.
3. “One of their own prophets, a Cretan, once said, ‘Cretans are always liars, malicious brutes, idle gourmands.’ This testimony is indeed true, a truth revealed by their own words. Therefore, reprove them sternly, so that they may be healthy in the faith.”
   This translation leans into the declarative reading but adds an explanatory phrase to bridge the proverb and the divine command, suggesting the writer sees the proverb as pragmatically true, serving as a basis for intervention. It refines the derogatory terms to convey their full force.