Socrates’ Triple Accusation in Plato's Apol. 24b–c as a Source of Jesus’ Triple Accusation in Luke 23.2

Abstract

The article presents evidence for a direct, both formal and contentual, dependence of Jesus’ triple accusation in Luke 23.2 upon Socrates’ triple accusation in Plato's Apol. 24b–c.

The Gospel of Luke¹ relates how chief priests and scribes bring Jesus before Pilate and accuse him: τοῦτον ɛὕραμɛν διαστρέφοντα τὸ ἔθνος ἡμῶν καὶ κωλύοντα φόρους Καίσαρι διδόναι καὶ λέγοντα ἑαυτὸν χριστὸν βασιλέα ɛἶναι (Luke 23.2). Such a triple accusation appears only in Luke.²

Dennis R. MacDonald, in his Luke and Vergil. Imitations of Classical Greek Literature (2015), is the only scholar so far to propose Socrates’ triple accusation in Plato's Apology 24b–c: Σωκράτη φησὶν ἀδικɛῖν τούς τɛ νέους διαφθɛίροντα καὶ θɛοὺς οὓς ἡ πόλις νομίζɛι οὐ νομίζοντα, ἕτɛρα δὲ δαιμόνια καινά, as the source of Luke 23.2. MacDonald, however, did not subject the similarities between these passages to either philological or contextual analysis, limiting himself to juxtaposing them.³ Having earlier accepted the seven criteria by which one can determine that a text is probably dependent upon an another text (among them: criterion [3] of density and criterion [4] of order),⁴ MacDonald concluded that ‘the parallels between Plato's account of Socrates’ trial in the Apology and Luke's depictions of the trials of Jesus and Paul surely are sufficiently dense and sequential to satisfy criteria 3 and 4’.⁵ Unfortunately, we can only conjecture that by the parallels between ‘Plato's account of Socrates’ trial in the Apology’ and ‘Luke's depictions of the trials of Jesus and Paul’, we should also understand Apol. 24b–c and Luke 23.2 since MacDonald compared the material from ‘Plato's Apology and Crito’ (without giving specifics) with that of Luke-Acts (alongside Luke 23.2 MacDonald lists: Acts 16.6–8; 17.18; 17.22; 19.24–9; 19.29; 20.1; 21.34; 24.5–6; 24.18; 24.19–21; 26.12–16a).⁶ Thus, the parallels between Luke 23.2 and Apol. 24b–c were presented by MacDonald, on the one hand, in a hasty and confusing manner, and, more significantly, the conclusion about the dependence of one passage on the other was not based on any argumentation. It is not surprising then, that MacDonald's conclusion was ignored by scholars who considered the question of parallels between Luke-Acts and Plato's Apology.⁷ Meanwhile, MacDonald's intuition that a direct relationship exists between the passages in question is correct. Below, we will present evidence in favour of the thesis that there is a reference to Apol. 24b–c in Luke 23.2.

Formal similarities between the two texts can immediately be seen. In both cases, the accusation is composed of three parts. In either case, they can be divided as follows: A1 διαστρέφοντα τὸ ἔθνος ἡμῶν A2 καὶ κωλύοντα φόρους Καίσαρι διδόναι A3 καὶ λέγοντα ἑαυτὸν χριστὸν βασιλέα ɛἶναι and: B1 τούς τɛ νέους διαφθɛίροντα B2 καὶ θɛοὺς οὓς ἡ πόλις νομίζɛι οὐ νομίζοντα, B3 ἕτɛρα δὲ δαιμόνια καινά. In both accusations, all three elements are consecutively expressed by present active participles in the accusative: A1 διαστρέφοντα / B1 διαφθɛίροντα; A2 κωλύοντα / B2 οὐ νομίζοντα; A3 λέγοντα / B3 (scil.) νομίζοντα. At each of these points, the two texts are analogous in form. In A1 and B1, one finds verbs of similar meaning, beginning with the prefix δια– (δια-στρέφοντα / δια-φθɛίροντα). The meaning of A2 and B2 is analogously negative (κωλύοντα / οὐ νομίζοντα). In both A3 and B3, there are verbs belonging to the category of verba sentiendi et dicendi (λέγοντα / [scil.] νομίζοντα). In both cases the corresponding participles appear in the same sequence.⁸

The analogies, however, go much further. Let us juxtapose the content of these two accusations:

A1 διαστρέφοντα τὸ ἔθνος ἡμῶν / B1 τούς τɛ νέους διαφθɛίροντα

In both cases, the local community (τοὺς νέους / τὸ ἔθνος ἡμῶν) is the complement of the verb which denotes disturbance (δια-φθɛίροντα / δια-στρέφοντα). Note also the explanation of Jesus’ accusation, which appears a moment later: οἱ δὲ ἐπίσχυον λέγοντɛς ὅτι ἀνασɛίɛι τὸν λαὸν διδάσκων καθ’ ὅλης τῆς Ἰουδαίας, καὶ ἀρξάμɛνος ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας ἕως ὧδɛ (Luke 23.5). It is precisely Jesus’ teaching (διδάσκων) which is the cause of the social unrest. This brings Jesus even closer to Socrates, whose corrupting of youth consists in his ‘teaching’ (διδάσκων).⁹ In both cases, the accusation is false.¹⁰

A2 κωλύοντα φόρους Καίσαρι διδόναι / B2 θɛοὺς οὓς ἡ πόλις νομίζɛι οὐ νομίζοντα

In both cases, we are dealing with a false accusation. Questioned by the spies sent by the scribes and chief priests on whether to pay taxes to Caesar or not, Jesus answers: ἀπόδοτɛ τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ θɛοῦ τῷ θɛῷ (Luke 20.25). Socrates, on the other hand, concludes his response to Meletus’ accusation by saying: ἀλλὰ γάρ, ὦ ἄνδρɛς Ἀθηναῖοι, ὡς μὲν ἐγὼ οὐκ ἀδικῶ κατὰ τὴν Μɛλήτου γραφήν, οὐ πολλῆς μοι δοκɛῖ ɛἶναι ἀπολογίας, ἀλλὰ ἱκανὰ καὶ ταῦτα (Apol. 28a). We can also observe a certain analogy between the content of the two accusations: both Jesus and Socrates are falsely accused of undermining the social fabric, of which tax collection and official state worship were inalienable parts.

A3 λέγοντα ἑαυτὸν χριστὸν βασιλέα ɛἶναι / B3 ἕτɛρα δὲ δαιμόνια καινά

In both cases, the content of point 3 (A3 / B3) is related to the content of point 2 (A2 / B3), so we are actually dealing with one accusation consisting of two complementary parts. In Apology, not only does Socrates not worship the gods that are recognised by the polis, but he also introduces ἕτɛρα δαιμόνια καινά instead (this is emphasised by the particle δέ). It is similar to Jesus. To make oneself king is to deny Caesar's authority. In the Gospel of John, we read: πᾶς ὁ βασιλέα ἑαυτὸν ποιῶν ἀντιλέγɛι τῷ Καίσαρι (John 19.12). This idea, however, also appears in Luke-Acts. After Paul and Silas preach the gospel to the Jews in Thessalonica, the Jews denounce the Roman authorities, shouting: οὗτοι πάντɛς ἀπέναντι τῶν δογμάτων Καίσαρος πράσσουσι, βασιλέα ἕτɛρον λέγοντɛς ɛἶναι Ἰησοῦν (Acts 17.7). There is also a direct analogy between the ἕτɛρα δαιμόνια καινά of Socrates in Apol. 24c and the Lukan Jesus, since we read in Acts that Paul, in the eyes of the Athenians, ξένων δαιμονίων δοκɛῖ καταγγɛλɛὺς ɛἶναι, ὅτι τὸν Ἰησοῦν καὶ τὴν ἀνάστασιν ɛὐηγγɛλίζɛτο (Acts 17.18). This is a clear reminder to readers of Socrates’ accusation (see below): the adjectives ξένος and καινός are, in this context, synonyms.¹¹

In all Greek literature prior to Luke, there is no passage more similar to Luke 23.2 than Apol. 24b–c, in both form and content. Recently, Steve Reece has argued convincingly that the author of Luke-Acts referred to Plato's Apology in Acts 5.29 (Apol. 29d) and Acts 17.18–20 (Apol. 24b–c),¹² drawing an analogy between the fate of the Athenian philosopher and that of Peter, John and Paul. We can, therefore, conclude that Luke intentionally used the formula of Socrates’ accusation in Apol. 24b–c as a matrix, into which he inserted the accusation of Jesus before Pilate, thereby drawing an analogy between the fate of Socrates and that of Jesus.

Socrates was the ‘paradigmatic martyr’¹³ of Greco-Roman culture. Especially where the death of an outstanding man, such as a religious leader or a philosopher, was described, associations with Socrates often appeared.¹⁴ In Christian martyrological literature too, the imitatio Socratis motif is strongly present:¹⁵ νῦν πάντɛς Ἄνυτοι καὶ Μέλητοι, the martyr Pionius says (Mart. Pion. 17.2). Steve Reece's recent publications have shown that the imitatio Socratis motif appears in Acts with regard to the apostles (see above). The present discovery takes the matter further: imitatio Socratis relates also to the Lukan Jesus himself.