[B-Greek] Titus 1:12-13
rhutchin at aol.com
rhutchin at aol.com
Thu Dec 10 09:02:36 EST 2009
As one who has barely memorized the Greek alphabet, I often find myself tracing through pronouns and antecedents trying to sort out who the speaker has in mind. Titus 1 is interesting for this.
We see Paul bringing up an issue beginning in v10, "EISIN GARPOLLOI ANUPOTAKTOI...MALIOTA hOI EK THS PERITOMHS..."
In v 12, when Paul says, "EIPEN TIS EX AUTWN,..." he still seems to be talking about the people he describes in v10 by using AUTWN. It seems to me that Paul may be referring to a racial slur spoken by a Jew (v10) about the Cretans.
Then, when Paul says, "hH MARTURIA hAUTH ESTIN ALHQHS," does he mean to say that the Jews actually are saying such things about the Cretans or does he mean to say that the Cretans are actually as described?
Given Paul's instruction in v13, "DI hHN AITIAN ELEGCE AUTOUS APOTOMWS...," who is to be reproved? The Cretans?? It sounds like Paul is telling Titus to reprove the Jews within the Christian community who are running around spouting all kinds of nonsense and in at least one instance, using racial slurs about the Cretans.
Is that a reasonable way to read this passage?
Roger Hutchinson
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 22:33:55 -0500
From: Oun Kwon <kwonbbl at gmail.com>
Subject: [B-Greek] Titus 1:12-13
To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID:
<5f1984b20912081933p5417c578m4094c046d48305e at mail.gmail.com>
First, I have copied Tit 1:12-13 with some phrase and line breaks added:
Titus
(1:12) EIPEN TIS EX AUTWN, IDIOS AUTWN PROFHTHS,
<KRHTES AEI YEUSTAI,
KAKA QHRIA, GASTERES ARGAI.>
(1:13a) hH MARTURIA hAUTH ESTIN ALHQHS.
(1:13b) DI hHN AITIAN ELEGCE AUTOUS APOTOMWS hINA hUGIAINWSIN EN TH PISTEI.
I came across this text discussed in a wonderful book I'm lately reading:
Anthony Thiselton, _ Interpreting God and the Postmodern Self _ (1995 Eerdmans)
His comment made me think.
My question is:
v. 13a is usually taken as
"There is a truth in such testimonial of his." "This testimony is true."
Is it possible (in terms of grammar and syntax) to take v. 13a as
something of interrogative?
"Is there a truth in such testimonial of his?"
I guess, I must be trying to take it kind of a rhetoric argument
"Isn't there a truth ~?"
Oun Kwon.
P.S. Thiselton writes on this text (pp. 37-38]:
... Almost every commentator tries to find some 'excuse' for a
judgmental steretypification of Cretans as liars. Some argue that
'This testimony is true' reflects either the opinion of the writer [of
the Epistle] based on experience, or a consensus behind such
stereotypification in the ancient world. But the author can hardly
fail to have been aware that in Greek logic the paradox of the liar
posed a familiar dilemma. If a habitual liar says, 'Everything that I
say is a lie', is this true or false? If we add, 'this testimony is
true', are we corroborating its truth or its falsity?
All this shows, as the writer well knows, that the paradox is
neither true nor false but self-defeating. But self-defeating
paradoxes perform other functions at a different level, whether in
Greek philosophy or in modern mathematical logic. They invite us to
view the 'claim' from another angle. In practice, the aim of the
writer has nothing to do with assassinating the character of Cretans,
but with demonstrating a lack of logical symmetry between first-person
testimony and third-person statement. The former draws its currency in
certain cases from the stance and personal history of the speaker.
Here the writer disparages the value of endless verbal rhetoric. This
can be self-defeating unless the speaker lives a blameless life which
gives his or her speech operative currency. Hence this proposition is
a meta-statement about self-defeating language and also an injunction
to focus on the kind of life-style urged throughout the epistle to
give validity to the witness of the church and of its elders. In my
article I offer reasons why Patristic exegesis set subsequent
interpretation [of this text] on the wrong track.
We conclude that 'truth' in the biblical writings is more complex,
subtle, and richly diverse in emphasis than alleged differences
between 'Greek' and 'Hebraic' notions of truth suggest. W. Pannenberg
rightly perceives that they do not characteristically view truth as
'timeless' or abstract. 'The truth of God must prove itself anew.'
Truth 'proves itself in relationships and thus has personal
character'.
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list