Socrates in Acts 5
The Apology of Plato1 is the defence given by Socrates at the trial which condemned him on the dual charges of disbelieving in the gods of the city, and corrupting the youth. The defence is found in three sections, the first being his defence proper, the second his proposal for what his punishment should be, and the third his speech after having received condemnation.
In his first speech, Socrates makes one apparently sarcastic appeal which would seem to undermine his case, making it as though he was not truly taking proceedings seriously. Socrates had previously attempted to fend off the claims of disbelieving in the gods of the city, although it’s difficult to say he was taking their charges wholly seriously.
However, he then enters a section where he appeals to his δαιμόνιον as justification for rejecting the authority of the court. My limited reading in this period suggests that obedience to the civil law, and even more so to practice the law or politics, was regarded as pious and an act of religious devotion. Therefore, by appealing to the daimonion given by an external Oracle beyond the pantheon of the city’s gods, he is not only granting their claim, but he is claiming that their laws and indeed the present assembly is acting impiously. How one squares this with his strict legalism in Crito isn’t obvious.
The most interesting section to me, however, is when Socrates ponders whether an acceptable punishment would be for the court to release him but bind his tongue from speaking Philosophy. At this thought, Plato records:
if you say to me, Socrates, this time we will not mind Anytus (one of his accusers), and will let you off, but upon one condition, that are to inquire and speculate in this way any more, and that if you are caught doing this again you shall die; - if this was the condition on which you let me go, I should reply: Men of Athens, I honour and love you; but I shall obey God rather than you, and while I have life and strength I shall never cease from the practice and teaching of philosophy, exhorting anyone whom I meet after my manner, and convincing him[…]
Huh? Sounds familiar. It is almost a direct parallel to an important event which happened centuries later.
Comparing under-over:
Socrates: …ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, ἀσπάζομαι μὲν καὶ φιλῶ, πείσομαι δὲ μᾶλλον τῷ θεῷ ἢ ὑμῖν,2
Acts 5.29: …ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ πέτρος καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι εἶπαν πειθαρχεῖν δεῖ θεῷ μᾶλλον ἢ ἀνθρώποις.
Not only does Luke (well-read in the Greeks of Plato’s period no doubt, given his style) record the happenstance almost identically, he makes sure to use the same verb, albeit with -αρχεῖν (authorities) suffix. Even the weak adversative becomes δεῖ (it is necessary…): an attempt to draw the words spoken to be as close an allusion as possible?
This leads me to three options:
- This is pure accident: I suppose this is possible, but as a theory tends to imply a belitting of the Greek influence elsewhere present in New Testament thought and action.
- This manner of speaking was well-known and -used: Maybe this was the case precisely because of Plato’s account, or it could have entered the Greek mind even earlier, with Socrates himself making reference to it. However, this would not explain the similarity of situation as nicely as the third option.
- Peter was making intentional allusion: The account of Socrates’s Apology was well-known, and Peter and the Apostles, and Luke recording this, made intentional subtle reference to the trial of Socrates to drive up sympathy for their cause, and to cause their persecutors to reflect on whether it was actually they themselves who were the impious ones.
The account in Acts 5 took place in Jerusalem, of course, and was presumably spoken in Aramaic(?). How influencial was Socrates’ trial amongst those in Jersulem? Would they even get the reference? Is it necessary that they should get the reference, or is it sufficient that those reading the account later would? Was the stylizing just Luke’s interpreting/dramatizing of the event for his own purposes?
It has certainly made me think.