Was Socrates Man or Myth
Transcript of Was Socrates Man or Myth
![Page 1: Was Socrates Man or Myth](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022021118/577d21de1a28ab4e1e961193/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
8/3/2019 Was Socrates Man or Myth
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/was-socrates-man-or-myth 1/4
Was Socrates man or myth? Applying historical Jesus criteriato Socrates
Filed under: HISTORIOGRAPHY — Neil Godfrey @ 10:48 am
Tags: Aristophanes, Jesus, Plato, Xenophon
It might be interesting to see how the criteria
used for the quest for the historical Jesus might
work with another figure of comparable stature in
the ancient world. A comparison like this might
help us assess their real value as determinants of
historicity.
Multiple Attestation
We have the writings of the philosopher Plato.
These dramatize the teaching career, trial and
death of Socrates in dialogue form. But was Plato
writing about a real person or was Socrates only
a literary character he chose through whom to
express his own philosophical teachings?
We have the writings of Xenophon. Xenophon
was known as a historian but his writings about Socrates are not histories. They portray a very
different sort of teacher from the one we read about in Plato.
Both Plato and Xenophon are clearly writing as devoted followers of Socrates, and classicists have
often remarked that the teachings they attribute to Socrates are really their own and not those of
a real Socrates at all. So we are still have one source type represented by both of these authors,
and historicity cannot be settled by appealing to their “multiple attestation” alone.
This reminds us of Schweitzer’s complaint about the nature of the evidence for Jesus:
[A]ll the reports about [Jesus] go back to the one source of tradition, early Christianity
itself, and there are no data available in Jewish or Gentile secular history which could
be used as controls. Thus the degree of certainty cannot even be raised so high as
positive probability. (Schweitzer, Quest, p.402)
But we do have another source that appears to be quite independent of the above pair of
Socrates’ disciples.
We have the writings of Aristophanes, another apparent contemporary. Now far from writing as an
admiring follower of Socrates, Aristophanes wrote plays in which he lampooned Socrates. Socrates
appears in his works as a wastrel, dirty, leading people astray though deceitful, self-serving
cleverness. But even if Aristophanes had been kinder to his portrayal of Socrates, he would still
have been writing as one relatively independent of those claiming to be personal followers.
A scene including Socrates in Aristophanes' play The Clouds.
Image via Wikipedia
![Page 2: Was Socrates Man or Myth](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022021118/577d21de1a28ab4e1e961193/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
8/3/2019 Was Socrates Man or Myth
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/was-socrates-man-or-myth 2/4
So it appears we have a strong case for Socrates being a real person after all. Aristophanes is
certainly not using Socrates as a literary figure through which to express his own philosophy.
It is not perfect or watertight. Multiple independent attestation as a principle does not guarantee
the factness of what is reported. Alien abductions are reported by many people who have nothing
to do with each other. Likewise reports that the White House and Israel were involved in a
conspiracy to destroy the Twin Towers on 9/11 are encountered by apparently quite unconnectedpeople. Likewise, we cannot be completely certain that Socrates did not originate as a literary or
other form of cultural construct that was exploited by Aristophanes, Plato and Xenophon. And
some classicists do raise the question whether or not Socrates was such a construct or a historical
person.
But till further work is done by those who raise this question it appears we have reasonable
grounds for accepting the probability of the historical existence of Socrates.
Embarrassment
There is plenty about Socrates to cause all sorts of embarrassment to followers and others who
may have known him. He had a shrew of a wife. He neglected his family in preference to talk in
the marketplace and drinking sessions with his mates. Even one of his followers accused him of
neglecting his own young sons by choosing to die rather than to live.
But none of these can seriously be used to affirm Socrates’ historical existence. All such details
are part of the literary portrayal and many are used as foils from which to present new teachings
– as likely as not the teachings of Plato or Xenophon. Did he really corrupt the morals of the
youth? Well of course the answer to that depends on one’s perspective. Plato used such an
“embarrassment” as a foil to condemn the state he despised; Aristophanes used it to write a very
clever play. Embarrassing details can be found to function in many different ways that serve theinterests of those reporting them. In other words, the embarrassment is not really cringing
personal embarrassment. It is a foil to be taken up and used, or not, as served different author’s
interests.
It cannot be used as an indicator of the historicity of Socrates.
Dissimilarity
In the dialogues of Plato we read about ideas and questioning of values that often appear to be
innovative. Others at the time, such as the playwright Euripides, were also questioning traditional
values. Socrates was not the only “sophist” of the day. But it is possible to single out distinctivesayings attributed to him that were not quite exactly like anything in the earlier extant record. But
it is, of course, impossible to know if these really were created by Socrates or by Plato or by
someone else yet again.
All change and innovation in society is the work of many sources, and where one person takes the
credit for something, that one person is always indebted to what has gone before. Whether any
new saying, or more often, an old idea wrapped up with a new twist, originates with a Mr X or Ms
Y is generally impossible to say. We can’t assume that an attribution to Socrates (or Jesus) is
![Page 3: Was Socrates Man or Myth](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022021118/577d21de1a28ab4e1e961193/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
8/3/2019 Was Socrates Man or Myth
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/was-socrates-man-or-myth 3/4
really original to them and then use that assumption as evidence for the very existence of
Socrates or Jesus. That way we could rationalize the historical existence of every literary character
to whom a saying is attributed.
We need, of course, to first establish the existence of such a person. That’s the first step. (We
may say we have a strong probability that Socrates existed by virtue of multiple independent
attestation.) But the second step is even harder: Were they or were they not really the first to saywhat is attributed to them?
Coherence
The story of Socrates is coherent, like any passable plot in any passable fiction. A well-meaning
man unsettles many by asking uncomfortable questions and is scapegoated as a corrupter of
youth and all that is wrong with the times. It also coheres with what we know of subsequent
events: the teachings of Plato and establishment of his Academy and all the philosophical schools
that branched off from that.
That does not prove the historicity of the account, though. Many religious and national myths can
claim some sort of coherent origination tale.
But at least in this case coherence does lend some added weight to the probability that has
previously been offered us by the independent attestations.
Plausibility
The story of Socrates is plausible. There is no resurrection at the end, no turning water into wine
when they ran out of the good stuff at the symposium, no offers to release Darius or Xerxes in
exchange for Socrates at his trial. The only heavenly ascent and descent is in a basket held up by
a prop on a theatre stage.
But it is the very plausibility of it that enables us to reasonably ask the question in the first place
about whether or not it is also “literally true”.
A child listening to a bed-time story finds it plausible enough to ask the question, “Is it true?”
Without plausibility we don’t even ask the question.
Well, that’s not quite true with the Gospels. Some people even seriously ask if Jesus really were
raised from the dead, etc. But I am not interested in getting into that sort of discussion. I usually
politely close the door on missionaries who try to raise it with me with a firm “Not interested,
thank you”.
All plausibility does is offer us a justification for asking if a story is historically true. It is not a
sufficient reason to believe in historicity. It is a necessary condition, but every criminal
constructing an alibi to escape detection knows this.
Conclusion
I have said enough. I leave it to others to draw their own conclusions.
![Page 4: Was Socrates Man or Myth](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022021118/577d21de1a28ab4e1e961193/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
8/3/2019 Was Socrates Man or Myth
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/was-socrates-man-or-myth 4/4