Philosophia: Love and Wisdom in Christ's Passion and Plato's Apology
An Essay
The Dead Christ Mourned, circa 1604 by Annibale Carracci. (first)
The Death of Socrates, 1787 by Jacques-Louis David. (second)
The biblical Passion narrative and Plato’s Apology demonstrate the love of wisdom as embodied, active, and self-sacrificial through the respective actions and attitudes of Jesus and Socrates. Charles Kahn, a classicist and professor at the University of Pennsylvania, calls the Athenian a “martyred embodiment of a moral ideal.”[1] Christ, qua Logos and Son of God, is understood as the manifestation of transcendental truth. Early Christian apologists therefore regarded Socrates and others in the pantheon of Greek philosophy as “partakers in the Word of God” insofar as the pagans were also “those who lived by reason.”[2] The present purpose of a rudimentary analysis and comparison requires that the historicity of both figures’ respective source literatures be addressed, albeit in a brief manner given the limited scope.
Donald Morrison of Rice University writes, “the problem of the historical Socrates is like the problem of the historical Jesus: it is vitally important to our sense of ourselves, as well as to our sense of the civilization to which we belong, that we obtain a historically reliable picture of who [these men were].”[3] Extra-biblical information regarding Jesus of Nazareth derived from Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews and Tacitus’ Annals describe the figure as a Jewish teacher at the center of a messianic movement who was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate in first-century Judaea during the reign of Emperor Tiberius, which concords with the biblical accounts.[4]
Scholars such as Bart Erhrman have argued against the reliability of the Gospels – and the New Testament generally – as a source of accurate insight into the person of Jesus, claiming the available manuscripts to be considerably “error-ridden” as a consequence of theologically and/or socially motivated alterations.[5] However, a study conducted by Maurice Robinson of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary examining the textual variances Erhman cites – sections of Luke and Matthew in particular – illustrates that “the base form of the autograph text has been substantially preserved, tending to differ only in minor details among the manuscripts. The primary base text otherwise clearly represents that which originally had been given by the sacred writers in the first century.”[6] Not intending to produce a strict biographical account of Jesus, these authors agree in the overall portrayal of the Nazarene where they may vary in minor specifics.
The Socratic discourses by Plato face a similar inquiry with respect to the presentation of their subject, given a number of anachronisms and historically-dubious inconsistencies. Eminent scholars such as Klaus Döring and Charles Kahn argue that, to a greater extent than the other dialogues, the Apology affords a measured and reliable account of the patron saint of philosophy. Following his assessment, Kahn concludes that “Plato has given us a true picture of [Socrates] as he saw him.”[7] Döring assents, stating, “the picture of Socrates in the Apology is in its basic features authentic.”[8]
Gregory Vlastos, among the most reputable individuals in the scholarship of Socrates, arrives at the same position of “accepting the Apology as a reliable recreation of the thought and character of the man Plato knew so well.”[9] Researcher Donald Morrison emphasizes that such a view is tenable from the perspective of the text as a “rhetorically-effective public defense of Socrates’ character and opinions,” rather than a precise verbatim transcription.[10] Thus, seen as philosophical and theological works with significant biographical elements, the Apology and the Gospels may reliably inform a general conceptual comparison of the foundational cultural figures they each shed light on.
Jesus and Socrates present paradigms of humility. Both men acknowledge themselves as what they are said to be; however, they emphasize their reliance on an Other for their particular titles and characterize their wisdom as not merely possessed, but possessive. In 399 B.C. Socrates was brought before the People's Court of Athens by Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon to be tried for crimes of heresy and “corrupting the minds of the young.”[11] Socrates states his ignorance plainly as the questioning begins, saying, “What you will hear will be a straightforward speech in the words that occur to me…Let me remind you of my position. This is my first appearance in a court of law…and so I am a stranger to the language of this place.”[12] He also clarifies the nature of his purported wisdom, saying, “Real wisdom is the property of God.”[13]
For Socrates, wisdom is grounded in an awareness of one’s limited knowledge and submission to critical inquiry. He says to the court, “[The oracle at Delphi] has merely taken my name as an example, as if he would say to us ‘The wisest of you men is he who has realized, like Socrates, that in respect to wisdom he is really worthless.’”[14] Socratic practice of philosophy, the love of wisdom, therefore begins with an active and honest quest for that which is lacking from an other who can provide it. Indeed, the process of questioning and reconciling his understanding to the divine is a duty for the Athenian: “That is why I still go about seeking and searching in obedience to the divine command, if I think that anyone is wise…[But] when I think they are not wise, I try to help the cause of God by proving he is not.”[15]
“The Wisdom of God,” as Luke’s Gospel calls him, justifies himself as such in the Gospel of John.[16] The Pharisees say to Christ, “‘You are bearing witness to yourself; your testimony is not true.’ Jesus answers, ‘Even if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true…you do not know whence I come or whither I am going. You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me.’”[17] During Jesus’ trial, Pilate asks, “Are you the King of the Jews?” The accused answers, “You have said so.” As charges continue to be made against him, Jesus gives “no further answer, so that Pilate wondered.”[18] Contextually, the Messiah – the anointed one – was expected to be an earthly political ruler; this limited understanding of the fuller nature of Christ’s kingship therefore occurs frequently throughout the Gospels.
In the context of the narrative as a whole, Jesus’ interrogation, crucifixion, and resurrection effect the fulfillment of his royalty and the correction of the misunderstanding displayed by his apostles and others. Thus, the Nazarene’s approach to ignorance holistically embodies that of Socrates in attitude, belief, and choice – the Word, the Wisdom of God, “is made flesh” in the Passion.[19]
Through Christ’s suffering (passion, passio, πάθος) his fullest relevance is realized. “Truly,” says the centurion beneath Jesus’ body, “this man was the Son of God.”[20] Keeping in mind the imagery of bread as the body of Christ, Jesus’ presence becoming known to the two apostles during the breaking of bread in Emma′us represents the necessity of being witness to and a participant in the sacrificial process – the Passion, the suffering. Before the meal, the now-resurrected Messiah asks his doubting disciples, “Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” He then blesses and shares the broken bread with his companions, becoming “known to them in the breaking of the bread.”[21] Prior to the climax of the Passion, not yet having the necessary knowledge for such suffering to be understood by them, the disciples insist that Jesus’ death should be avoided. Christ tells them before the crucifixion that “the Son of Man must suffer many things…and be killed, and after three days rise again.” Peter, the archetypal apostle, rebukes his teacher; the latter retorts, saying, “you are not on the side of God, but of men….If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.”[22]
Jesus is communicating that in order to “enter into his glory” one must recognize the “Wisdom of God” via participation with, in, and through passionate sacrifice – love.[23] Christ is shown to question and ultimately accept the pain of such participation, the suffering and death of his present, limited self. In the Garden of Gethsemane, he prays, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.”[24] Despite the suffering, Jesus acts in trust of the One by whom he has been in-formed, indeed inspired: “the Holy Spirit descended upon [Jesus]…and a voice came from heaven, ‘Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased.’"[25] He admonishes his followers against the temptation to cling to the limited self, saying, “For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.”[26] Theologically, the possibility of life’s fulfillment would have been lost had Jesus acted on such a temptation.
Socrates also accepts and assures others of the veracity and fidelity of the “prophetic voice” that has hitherto guided him, a guide that he says “could not have failed to oppose” him if his actions were not “sure to bring some good result.”[27] Having not been counseled to the contrary, he willingly faces his impending death, saying, “The difficulty is not so much to escape death; the real difficulty is to escape from doing wrong…”[28] Thematically, Socrates is guided by an external source of information regarding the sacrifice necessary for the embodied fulfillment of his wisdom. The Athenian keeps his cup (of hemlock) so that the corruption of his prosecutors can be witnessed.
As Jesus embodies his correction of Pilate, Socrates demonstrates knowledge, truth, the wisdom of God, etc., through sacrificial action rather than sophistic profession, “not for lack of arguments…but a lack of effrontery and impudence.”[29] Each figure’s reference to an Other, by whom he is afforded the qualities he is said to possess, shows that one should recognize and humbly accept his or her dependent relation to more experienced and knowledgeable others. Further, Jesus and Socrates demonstrate that it is through love, i.e., the willing sacrifice of one’s present and limited state of self for the sake of an other, that one achieves intellectual, ethical, and overall personal betterment.
Notes
[1] Donald Morrison, “On the Alleged Historical Reliability of the Apology,” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 82, no.3 (2000): 235, https://philpapers.org/archive/MOROTA-3.pdf.
[2] Justin Martyr, “The First Apology,” in Fathers of the Church: The First Apology, the Second Apology, Dialogue with Trypho, Exhortation to the Greeks, Discourse to the Greeks, the Monarchy or the Rule of God, tran. Thomas Hall (Catholic University of America Press, 1948), 83, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uncp-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3134832.
[3] Morrison, 235.
[4] Paul L. Maier, “Josephus and Jesus,” North American Mission Board, March 30th, 2016. https://www.namb.net/apologetics/resource/josephus-and-jesus/; Cornelius Tacitus, The Annals, eds. Alfred Church, William Brodribb, and Sara Bryant (Random House, 1942; Perseus Digital Library), 15.44. https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078%3Abook%3D15%3Achapter%3D44.
[5] Thomas Howe, “A Response to Bart D. Erhman’s Misquoting Jesus,” The International Society of Christian Apologetics, 2006, https://files.mychurchwebsite.net/c7579/2006_howe-aresponsetobartehrman.pdf, 20.
[6] Ibid., 19.
[7] Charles Kahn, Plato and the Socratic Dialogue (Cambridge UP, 2008), 88, https://uncp.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01UONCAP_INST/camo2t/alma991005871662105736
[8] Ibid., 236.
[9] Ibid., 237.
[10] Morrison, 242.
[11] Plato, “Apology,” trans. Hugh Tredennick in The Last Days of Socrates, ed. Betty Radin (Penguin Books, 1969), 43, 54.
[12] Ibid., 45.
[13] Ibid., 52.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Luke 11:49 (RSV).
[17] John 8:13-16.
[18] Mark 15:2-5.
[19] John 1:14; Luke 11:49.
[20] Mark., 15:39.
[21] Luke 24:26, 35.
[22] Mark 8:31-34.
[23] Luke 11:49
[24] Matthew 26:39.
[25] Luke 3:22.
[26] Matthew 16:25.
[27] Plato, “Apology,” 74.
[28] Ibid., 73.
[29] Ibid., 72.
Bibliography
Ehrman, Bart D. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. Harper San Francisco, 2005.
Evans, Stephen C. The Historical Christ and the Jesus of Faith: The Incarnational Narrative as History. Oxford UP, 1996. https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=5f5fb133-0713-39a3-a5a4-2277637c1096.
Howe, Thomas. “A Response to Bart D. Erhman’s Misquoting Jesus,” The International Society of Christian Apologetics, 2006. https://files.mychurchwebsite.net/c7579/2006_howe-aresponsetobartehrman.pdf.
Kahn, Charles. Plato and the Socratic Dialogue. Cambridge UP, 2008. https://uncp.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01UONCAP_INST/camo2t/alma991005871662105736
Maier, Paul L. “Josephus and Jesus.” North American Mission Board, March 30th, 2016. https://www.namb.net/apologetics/resource/josephus-and-jesus/. Accessed February 28th 2025.
Martyr, Justin. “The First Apology.” In Fathers of the Church: The First Apology, the Second Apology, Dialogue with Trypho, Exhortation to the Greeks, Discourse to the Greeks, the Monarchy or the Rule of God. Translated by Thomas Hall. Catholic University of America Press, 1948. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uncp-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3134832.
Morrison, Donald. “On the Alleged Historical Reliability of Plato’s Apology.” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 82, no. 3 (2000): 235-265. https://philpapers.org/archive/MOROTA-3.pdf
Plato. “Apology.” Translated by Hugh Tredennick in The Last Days of Socrates. Edited by Betty Radin. Penguin Books, 1969.
Tacitus, Cornelius. The Annals. Edited by Alfred Church, William Brodribb, and Sara Bryant. Random House, 1942; Perseus Digital Library. Accessed February 28, 2025. https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078%3Abook%3D15%3Achapter%3D44.