Petrus Socraticus? Socratic Reminiscences in Luke’s Portrait of the Apostle Peter

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru

Petrus Socraticus? Socratic Reminiscences in Luke's Portrait of the Apostle Peter

Matthias Becker

Universitat Gottingen, Theologische Fakultat (Seminar fur Neues Testament), Platz der GottingerSieben Gottingen

New Testament scholars have long argued that in Acts 17:16-34 Luke depicts Paul in such a way as to evoke Socrates' modus philosophandi and to echo his trial and apology. While this argument can be based on sufficiently clear philological indications, there are other, comparatively vague and more general Socratic reminiscences in Luke-Acts, e. g. in the Gethsemane episode which shows that for the Lukan Jesus death is not a terrifying prospect. This study reads Luke's portrayal of the apostle Peter through the lens of the exemplum Socratisas presented by Greek and Roman intellectuals in the first and early second centuries CE, including Dio Chrysostom, Epictetus, Plutarch, and Seneca. The author argues that the humble origins of Peter, his non-academic profession, his poverty, his lack of formal education, and his unbreakable commitment to obey God and to spread the Christian message in spite of the threat of judges are reminiscent of major elements of the reception of Socrates in the period that Luke-Acts was probably composed (c. 80-100 CE). Highlighting the subtle Socratic components in Luke's depiction of Peter not only helps to shed new light on Peter's alleged lack of education (Acts 4:13). It also helps to understand, firstly, how the literary depiction of early Christian teaching figures is shaped by roughly contemporaneous philosophical discourses, and secondly, that Peter's literary image, although it presents a totally different type of teaching figure than Paul, serves in its own way to exemplify the compatibility of the Christian religion with particular strands of ancient philosophy.

Keywords: New Testament, Luke-Acts, Peter, Socrates, Greco-Roman education, (il-)literacy.

Introduction

philosophical socrates christian

New Testament scholars have repeatedly argued, and rightly so, that in Acts 17:1634 the early Christian author Luke presents Paul in overtly Socratic terms. For recent discussion, see Keener 2014, 2580, 2598; Hilton 2018, 144-145. In this famous passage, unparalleled in the New Testament, the missionary's sojourn in Athens, which in the undisputed Pauline letters is mentioned merely in passing, 1 Thess 3:1. is creatively transformed into a literary encounter between Christianity and ancient philosophy. Cf. Acts 17:18; Rowe 2011; Vollenweider 2012; Prostmeier 2013, 127-141. Striking allusions to the exemplum Socratis include, firstly, Paul's “daily conversations” in the city's “marketplace” (; Acts 17:17; cf., e. g., Plat. Apol.17c; Xen.Mem.1.2.33; Epict.Diss. 4.4.21; Diog.Laert.Vit.phil. 2.21. secondly, the allegation raised against him that he was a “proclaimer of foreign deities”, intending to introduce a “new doctrine”; Acts 17:18-19; cf., e. g., Plat. Apol.24b-c, 26b; Xen.Mem. 1.1.1--3; Xen. Apol.10; Max. Tyr. Diss. 3.8; Diog.Laert.Vit.phil. 2.40. thirdly, the fact that he was brought to the Areopagus to be tried on that charge; Acts 17:19--20. and fourthly, the speech Paul delivers which contains a number of references to philosophical topics and traditions commonly associated with the figure of Socrates. Doring 1979, 152; Jantsch 2017. The philosophical topics Torsten Jantsch identifies as Socratic include theological cosmology, divine providence, the invisibility of the gods, the similarity between the human and divine natures, divine self-sufficiency, and the inappropriateness of paying (cultic) homage to deities. In an article soon to be published, J. Andrew Cowan argues that Luke in Paul's oratio Areopagiticaimplicitly interacts with Plato's Euthyphro and the Apology, showing interest, specifically, in aspects of Socratic thought as represented in traditions about his trial (Cowan, forthcoming). Paul, however, is not the only protagonist in Luke-Acts dressed up, at least episodically, in Socratic garb. For further Socratic elements in Luke's portrayal of Paul, see Heininger 2007, 413--414. Rather, he is joined by Jesus and, as I shall argue, by Peter. Scholars have been comparing Jesus with the Greek philosopher for more than two centuries. See, e. g., Priestly 1803; Wenley 1889; Bostick 1916; Gooch 1996; van Kooten 2017. For the ancient roots of the comparison of Christ and Socrates, see Justin. Mart. 2 Apol.10.8; Hanges 2006, 143--150. Socratic reminiscences mainly concern his death, which the auctorad Theophilum pointedly presents, in contrast to Mark's and Matthew's accounts, as a morsphilosophi: Jesus' prayerful trust in the will of God that prevents him from suffering an emotional breakdown in the garden of Gethsemane, Luke 22:39--46. The Markan (Mark 14:32--42) and Matthean (Matt 26:36--46) versions differ considerably as regards Jesus' coping with his immanent death.his trial as well as his way of viewing death and his way of dying reveal a kind of tranquil steadfastness that finds its classical counterpart in the noble death of Socrates. For a thorough study on the philosophical tendencies in Luke's versions of the Gethsemane episode and the crucifixion scene (Luke 23:33--48), which are different from those of Mark and Matthew, see Sterling 2001. Jesus' ultimaverba are a case in point: The desperate and emotional cry of the Markan and Matthean Jesus “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me” (Mark 15:34; Matt 27:46), is replaced with the more confident words “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit” (Luke 23:46).

As regards Peter, with the exception of commentators looking for parallels to specific verses, See, e. g., Keener 2013, 1157 (Acts 4:13), 1161 (Acts 4:18--22), 1218 (Acts 5:29). not many classicists or New Testament scholars have hitherto endeavoured to view Luke's literary portrayal through a specifically Socratic lens. Hilton 2018, 145--148, with his conclusions on the philosophical traits of Peter in Acts 4 and 5, does break new ground. But he does not offer a typology of Socratic reminiscences in Luke's general portrayal of Peter. However, Peter seems also suited for a comparison with the Athenian philosopher, especially if one takes the reception of Socrates in the early imperial period into account. After all, Plato's image of a highly intelligent and cultivated Socrates who engages in philosophical, literary and scientific discourse does not, despite its massive influence on ancient philosophy and literature, represent the whole, multi-faceted picture that later intellectuals have constructed of him. Differing and nuanced portraits of Socrates emerge early, as even a superficial look at the Platonic and Xenophontic Socrates reveals (Danzig 2010). For an analysis of the reception of Socrates in the Hellenistic, imperial, and late antique periods, see Doring 1979; Moore 2019. Taking up a suggestion made by the German New Testament scholar UdoSch- nelle, who points out that the education of New Testament authors and their respective audiences should be evaluated primarily within the context of contemporaneous Greco- Roman literature, philosophy, and culture, Schnelle 2015, esp. 120-121, 140-141; cf. further Becker 2020, 35-51, at 40. I take as the main basis of my study not the writings of Plato or Xenophon, but a selection of those of Valerius Maximus (first half of the first century CE), Seneca (c. 4-65 CE), Musonius Rufus (c. 30-100 CE), Dio Chrysostom (c. 40-c. 115 CE), Plutarch (c. 45-c. 120 CE), and Epictetus (c. 55-c. 135 CE). All of these rhetoricians, philosophers and writers have transmitted historical traditions about Socrates, but through selection and interpretation they have also shaped the cultural image of Socrates on their own terms. Taking UdoSchnelle's approach seriously means that the auctor ad Theophilum and his predominantly Gentile Christian audience, who represent a branch of first-century Christianity in which biblical theology merges with Greco-Roman education, Feldmeier 2012, 77-80, 92-93; Becker 2020, 30, 632-635; cf. also Vollenweider 2012, 305. Feldmeier 2012, 77 rightly describes Luke-Acts as “a precursor of the conjunction of biblical faith and Hellenistic education”; see also ibid. 92: Luke's “work represents a milestone on the difficult path of early Christianity towards the appropriation of Greek education and culture without renouncing its own identity.” did not necessarily have to have carefully read Plato or Xenophon themselves in order to be acquainted with Socratic traditions. Without precluding the possibility that Luke (and his audience) had first-hand knowledge of Xenophontic or Platonic texts, such as the Apology (cf. Plat. Apol. 17a; Acts 17:22: avSpei; A9r|vatoi), my main point here is that the reception of Socrates was so vivid in the first and early second centuries CE that Luke (and his audience) could (also) draw from contemporaneous second-hand knowledge preserved and diffused by educated discourse. Rather, it is important to underscore that they were most probably familiar with all kinds of contemporaneous discourses about rhetorical, ethical, theological, and (popular) philosophical issues (including quotes from Plato's dialogues on the exemplum Socratis), in which the writings of the above-mentioned nenaideupevoi participate. See Becker 2020, 35-61 for more evidence supporting this assumption and for a more thorough account of my general approach.

Looking at first and early second-century receptions of Socrates, which are roughly contemporaneous with the probable date of composition of Luke-Acts between circa 80100 CE, Cf. Schnelle220t6, 332 (around 90-100 CE); Adams 2019, 146 (around 80-90 CE).Schnelle and Adams follow the majority of scholars, and so do I. I argue that there are interesting analogies to be considered concerning, firstly, Peter's humble origins and non-academic occupation, secondly, his poverty, thirdly, his lack of a formal education, and fourthly, his commitment to obey God under the pressure of hostile judicial hearings. While the first and second analogies are somewhat vague, the third and fourth analogies form the core of my argument. The findings of this study make it seem likely that the auctorad Theophilum uses different components of the multifaceted picture of Socrates of his day to highlight different aspects in the portrayals of his protagonists. Certain nuances of the multifarious image of Socrates in Luke's lifetime are reflected, as it were, in different literary characters in Luke-Acts. While the Lukan Paul and the Lukan Jesus are primarily modelled, at least in part, after the Socrates moriens (Jesus) and the Socrates philosophans (Paul), the Lukan Peter is, at least in part, reminiscent of a Socrates who pleads (intellectual) simplicity as well as obedience to the god and who rejects erudition as a prerequisite for wisdom.

Humble Origins and Occupation

As is well known, Peter, unlike Paul, does not come from a city renowned for its educational institutions: While Paul in his letters never mentions the place where he was born and brought up, As Vegge 2006, 425-442 rightly points out, this fact does not imply that Luke's information about Paul's birthplace is historically questionable. Luke is the only New Testament author who mentions Paul's home town Tarsus. In fact, he states the name three times, thereby highlighting, though in somewhat encrypted fashion, the educational background of one of his most important protagonists. Acts 9:11; 21:39; 22:3; cf. Heininger 1998, 130-133. In Luke's day, Tarsus was famous for its schools of rhetoric and philosophy and it had an excellent reputation in the advancement of “general education” (ºóêèê˳îñëà³áº³à), so much so that it was even compared with Athens and Alexandria by Strabo (Geogr. 14.5.12-15). By contrast, and in accordance with the synoptic tradition, Peter is depicted as hailing from Capernaum, Luke 4:38; parr. Mark 1:29; Matt 8:14. Another aspect that applies both to Peter and to Socrates and which does not figure at all in Luke's portrayals of Jesus or Paul is marriage (Luke 4:38; cf. Mark 1:30; Matt 8:14; 1 Cor 9:5). Socrates' marital relationship with Xanthippe was well known during Luke's lifetime; see, e. g., Sen. Epist. 104.27; Valer. Max. Fact.et diet. mem.7.2 ext. 1; Muson.Diatr.14, p. 70.11-71.1 Hense; Epict.Diss. 3.26.23; 4.1.159; Plut.De cap.exinimic. util. 90e. a place that the Jewish historian Josephus calls a “village” Joseph. Vita 403. In Strabo's account of the region surrounding the Sea of Galilee, the fishing village Capernaum is not even mentioned, although he does touch upon the adjacent town of Tarichaea, which was famous for its pickled fish (Strab. Geogr. 16.2.45; cf. also Joseph. Vita 404). whereas Luke categorizes it as a “city”. Luke 4:31; diff. Mark 1:21. Of course, this strategy of a literary urbanization is distinctive of Luke-Acts as a whole, Cadbury 21958, 245-249. and it also enhances the significance of Jesus' public activity in Capernaum by creating the impression that his ministry takes place in an urban setting. Luke 4:31-41; Wolter 2008, 201. At the same time, the term might serve to hide the rural origins of Peter's family. Despite his attempt to locate Peter's home within an urban environment, the information Luke includes in his gospel generally indicates that he does not belong to the upper stratum of society. After all, he is introduced as a Galilean fisherman, and only after he meets Jesus does he turn his back on fishing. Luke 5:1-11; cf. Mark 1:16-20; Matt 4:18-22. It is this portrayal of a simple man with a non-elitist background that is reminiscent of Socrates. Notwithstanding that he comes from the famous intellectual city of Athens, DioChrys. Orat. 55.8; cf. Diog. Laert.Vit.phil. 2.18. writers in the early imperial period are well aware of the “ill repute” (ddoa) commonly associated with the fact that he was not of noble birth. Plut.Frg. 140* Sandbach; cf. Valer. Max. Fact.et dict. mem. 3.4 (init.); 3.4 ext. 1 (Socrates included among the humili loco nati). In the same paragraph, Valerius Maximus makes clear that people, despite being of humble birth, can indeed become famous, and he refers to Socrates, Euripides, Demosthenes, and others as examples (Valer. Max. Fact.et dict. mem.3.4 ext. 1-2). As Seneca quite bluntly puts it: “Socrates was not of patrician rank” (patricius Socrates non fuit). Sen. Epist. 44.3. In the same paragraph, Seneca also mentions the Stoic Cleanthes who used to work as a water carrier for a gardener to earn a living; cf. Diog. Laert.Vit.phil. 7.168-169. According to tradition, his mother Phaenarete worked as a midwife, and his father Sophroniscus was a sculptor. Valer. Max. Fact.et dict. mem.3.4 ext. 1; Plut.Frg. 140* Sandbach; cf. also Diog. Laert.Vit.phil. 2.18; Becker 2016a, 23. Before devoting himself to philosophy, Socrates was said to have practiced the craft of masonry, too, following in his father's footsteps. DioChrys. Orat. 55.2; cf. Diog. Laert.Vit.phil. 2.19. Thus, besides being born into non-intellectual families, Peter and Socrates have in common that they started out as crafts- or tradesmen, who nevertheless decide to adopt a life of austerity, even poverty.

Poverty

Within the context of first century Christianity, Luke clearly can be considered one of the fiercest opponents of luxury, avarice, and wealth, paying more attention to these issues than any other evangelist. See, e. g., Hays 2010; Kramer 2015. Although he also depicts well-to-do Christians, Cf. Acts 16:14-15. the central teaching figures of Luke-Acts, such as Jesus, Luke 6:20-21; 6:24-25; 9:58; 12:13-34. Paul, Acts 20:33. and Peter generally live a simple life, partly displaying poverty ostentatiously, partly criticizing wealth severely. Hence, potential Socratic reminiscences concerning poverty are definitely not limited to the depiction of Peter, but they constitute, so to speak, one piece in the overall Socratic mosaic of the apostle. In Luke's day, although impoverishment and voluntary abnegation of wealth were generally associated with the philosophical modus vivendi, See, e. g., Philo Prov. 2.1 Colson: [...] o'l5º 9povr|aewc; êà¿aperfcàëààãöñºðààòà³re êà¿àîêãðà¿navrecelolv, oAlyou5ºø ôñãîà³, nsvrpec;,aôaveu;, a5ooi, òàëåèãîãFor a study of the various theories of poverty in New Testament times, see Armitage 2016. the Athenian philosopher himself was particularly well-known for his poverty. See, e. g., Philo Prov. 2.21 Colson; Sen. Epist. 104.27; DioChrys.Orat.3.1; 54.2; Plut.Arist.1.9; Quomodoquissuos in virt.84f; De genioSocr. 582b; cf. also Max. Tyr. Diss. 1.9; 18.5; 39.5; Diog.Laert.Vit.phil. 2.31. The image of the Socrates pauper ultimately goes back to Plato's famous lines in Apol. 23b-c: [...] aAA' svnevtapuptaelpl 5ia rpv rob 0eou Ààòðå³àèAnother philosopher well-known in Luke's day for his poverty was Diogenes, see, e. g., DioChrys. Orat.6 and 10. Interestingly, to abandon earthly property for the sake of following Jesus is an important point that Peter makes in Luke 18:28 (parr. Mark 10:28; Matt 19:27), saying: “See, we have followed you, leaving behind our property”. Luke's audience, in hearing this phrase, can think back to chapter 5:11, where the text says that after Peter, James and John had witnessed the miraculous catch of fish made possible by Jesus, Luke 5:1-11; cf. Mark 1:16-20; Matt 4:18-22. they “followed him, leaving everything behind” (àôºóòºñïàóòàpKo\ou0naav àèòô). From then on, the narrative presents Peter as living a simple itinerant life like the other disciples, and when Jesus sends them out, he plainly states that this is exactly what he expects of them while proclaiming the kingdom of God and healing people: “Do not take anything with you on the journey”, Jesus says in Luke 9:3, “neither a staff (paSov) nor a leather bag (nppav), nor bread (aprov), nor money (apyupiov); and do not have two tunics (6uo xrrtivac;).” While this demand seems to have a specifically Cynic ring to it, Typical features of Cynic apparel include a filthy “cloak” (rpwv or rpipwviov), a “leather pouch” (ïòà), and a “staff” ôàêòãà); see, e. g., Ps.-DioChrys. Orat.64.18; Epict.Diss. 3.22.10; 3.22.50; Diog.Laert.Vit.phil. 6.13; cf. further Billerbeck 1978, 56-57; Horn 21986, 195-199. Since the Hellenistic period, the habit of wearing a simple cloak became a general characteristic of philosophers who embraced asceticism, being ultimately inspired by the example of Socrates (Plat. Symp.219b; Billerbeck 1978, 56). it should be noted that, although Diogenes is to be considered the “Prototyp des wahrenKynikers”, Cynicism in the Hellenistic and imperial periods heavily relied on the role model of Socrates. Billerbeck 1978, 6-9, at 7 (quote). In addition, there is another instance in Luke-Acts where Peter confesses his poverty in a more general sense. Initiating the healing of the lame beggar at the Beautiful Gate of the temple in Jerusalem, Acts 3:1-10. Peter says in Acts 3:6: “Silver and gold I do not possess, but what I do have I give to you: In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazorean, [rise and] walk around!”

Lack of Education

While Peter's humble origins, his non-academic occupation and voluntary poverty are somewhat vague with regard to the literary socratization of the apostle, his lack of education and his commitment to obey God constitute more persuasive evidence. In Acts 4:13, the reader encounters an unusual phenomenon: Using Jesus' disciples Peter and John Cf. Luke 6:13-14; parr. Mark 3:14-17; Matt 10:1-1-2. The following content of section 3 is largely based on Becker 2020, 615-621, with modifications. as examples, Luke puts the narrative spotlight on the lack of education that characterizes some of his teaching figures. When Luke speaks elsewhere about the educational background of his protagonists, he usually makes affirmative statements about the value of learning, focusing partly on aspects of Jewish education, partly on Greek literary and rhetorical naideta. Plumacher 1972, 19-23; Feldmeier 2012, 82-83. Hence, Moses is depicted as erudite in the sense that he was taught the barbarian “wisdom” of the Egyptians; Acts 7:22. For a similar, but more creative attempt to fill in the narrative gaps in the Exodus account on Moses' life in Egypt (Exod 2:1-15, esp. 2:10-11), see Philo Vit. Mos. 1.23-24 (on Moses' ÿøẳà); Piccione 2004. Paul is said to have studied in Jerusalem under Gamaliel the Elder; Acts 22:3; Burchard 1970, 35-36. Furthermore, Luke is eager to picture Paul as a brilliant speaker throughout Acts (Plumacher 1972, 22; Keener 2012, 264). the Hellenistic Jewish teacher and missionary Apollos, a native of Alexandria, is presented as a “learned” or “erudite man” (avppkoyioc;) well-versed in the sacred writings of the Jews and thereby possessed of distinctive features which indicate an intellectual and philological profile reminiscent of Philo of Alexandria; Acts 18:24-19:1, esp. 18:24; Wehnert 2013. For a thorough analysis of Philo's thought, see Niehoff 2018; for the scholarly context of his work in Alexandria, see Niehoff 2011. and even Jesus is never portrayed as a “carpenter” nor as the “son of a carpenter” in Luke-Acts, which marks a striking difference when compared with the Markan and the Mattheannarraives. In Mark 6:3, Jesus is presented as “the carpenter” (o T£ktwv), while in Matt 13:55 he is introduced as the “son of the carpenter” (o òîé tcktovoc;uioc;). In the second century, the Middle Platonist Celsus obviously had knowledge about Jesus' manual occupation as evidenced in Mark 6:3, which led him to make fun of early Christian formulae: Popular phrases among the Christians, such as “wood/tree of life” (Tfc (wfc; u\ov) or “resurrection of the flesh from the wood/tree” (avaaTaaic; îàðêÎñ; àÿî éÕîè), were coined, according to Celsus, because “their teacher was nailed to a cross and was a carpenter by trade (tcktwvTqvTsxvqv)” (apud Orig. Cels. 6.34); cf. Andresen 1955, 176. Against this backdrop, the portrayal of Peter and John in Acts 4:13 seems odd at first glance. Before putting this verse into its larger discourse context, its immediate literary context has to be briefly considered.

After healing a lame beggar at the Beautiful Gate of the temple in Jerusalem, Acts 3:1-10. Peter delivers a long sermon in Solomon's Portico Acts 3:11-26. and subsequently is arrested together with John and others to be questioned by the Sanhedrin. Acts 4:1-12.Luke's main point in describing the reaction of the members of the council to Peter's and John's answers is to highlight their surprise.

As Luke puts it, the Sanhedrin, being unaware of Peter's empowerment by the holy Spirit as presented in Acts 4:8, obviously did not expect seemingly uneducated people to be so outspoken:

But when they observed the boldness (nappaia) of Peter and John and noticed that they were illiterate and common men (av0pwnoi aypappatoisiaiv Kai ²á³øø), they marveled and recognized that they had been with Jesus. (Acts 4:13)

Since Peter and John are introduced in his passage specifically as disciples of Jesus (auvòô'Iqaouqaav), the verdict about their lack of education somehow appears to be aimed at the Jesus movement as a whole. Although Luke in Acts 4:5-6 implies that the members of the council include educated scribes, the lack of education he has in mind does not concern the specific kind of scribal learning that members of the Jewish elite received. PaceRiesner31988, 413; Keener 2013, 1154, 1156, and others. If he had wanted to make this point, it would have been sufficient to call Peter and John ³á³øø³, because this term refers to non-professionals or, in other words, to people who have no special training in a given “art” or “craft” Creyvn). See, e. g., DioChrys. Orat. 71.5; for further evidence, see Kraus 1999, 436-438. Rather, Luke intends to picture Peter and John as utterly illiterate laymen who do not possess any professional knowledge neither about the Jewish scriptures nor about any other kind of literature. Adams 2015, 132-133; Hilton 2018, 132-133; cf. also the discussion in Keener 2013, 1156-1157. In the second century, Celsus similarly called the Christians ³á³øøand dYpolê6òºpol (apud Orig. Cels. 1.27); see Hilton 2018, 44-47. This way, he makes it quite plain that they represent a different kind of Christian identity than Apollos or Paul, who both had studied the Scriptures extensively Acts 18:24-25; 22:3. and who even were partly familiar with Greek philosophy and poetry, as Paul's Areopagus speech shows. Cf. Acts 17:22-31, esp. 17:28 (quote of Aratus' Phaenomena);Vollenweider 2012; Jantsch 2017. The adjective dypdppaTOc; in Acts 4:13 is a New Testament hapaxlegomenon and primarily refers to people who have not attended elementary school and therefore are unable to read or write. As the evidence from contemporaneous Greek writers suggests, DioChrys. Orat.13.21; Plut.Pyth.orac.405c; Epict.Diss. 2.2.22-24; cf. also Xen. Mem. 4.2.20.this is the meaning Luke's educated audience was probably most familiar with, although it should be noted that illiteracy per se was not unanimously condemned within the broader context of ancient literature. See Kraus 1999, 438-442, who deals with the documentary papyri in which illiteracy is not disparaged. For a survey of more elitist attitudes to uneducated people in general, see Morgan 1998, 235238, 245-248, 257-259, 268-269. Hilton 2018, 35-57 discusses specifically pagan perceptions and criticism of illiteracy in early Christian groups, focusing mainly on second-century source material. Not surprisingly, many commentators advocate a literal reading of Acts 4:13, arguing that Luke makes a statement about the historical reality of the social status and educational background of the earliest adherents of Jesus. Bovon 1996, 70; Heil 2014, 285. However, Luke's phrasing can also be understood as a literary means to criticize a special kind of education in its relation to the Christian faith. That is where a specific aspect of the contemporaneous reception of Socrates comes into play.

Like Peter and John, the former Athenian stonemason was by no means generally renowned for an elitist type of naideta among Greek and Roman writers in the early imperial period, For a positive evaluation of Socrates' education, which is also part of his multi-faceted image in the early imperial period, see, e. g., Valer. Max. Fact.et dict. mem.6.4 ext. 2 (Socrates autem, Graecaedoctrinaeclarissimumcolumen); 8.7 ext. 8 (tantisdoctrinaesuaedivitiis). although he was widely recognized as a sage. Cf., e. g., Valer. Max. Fact.et dict. mem.3.4 ext. 1 (non solumhominumconsensuverumetiamApollinisoraculosapientissimusiudicatus); 8.8 ext. 1; Flav.Jos. Contr. Ap. 2.135; DioChrys.Orat.13.30; 72.11; Plut.Arist. 27.3. According to Seneca, Socrates taught that in order to achieve true happiness and virtus one has to be ready to “appear stupid” (stultumvideri) to other people. Sen. Epist. 71.7: tealicuistultumvideri sine. To be sure, this does not imply that there is any justified causal relation between the education of philosophers and the (erroneous) judgment that laymen might pass on them. But for present purposes, it is noteworthy to point out that in Seneca's opinion striving to appear erudite is incompatible with the Socratic modus philosophandi. In one of his treatises, Plutarch makes mention of the Hellenistic Peripatetic philosopher Aristoxenus of Tarentum who harshly criticised Socrates for being “uneducated, ignorant, and undisciplined” (). Plut.Herod. malig. 856c = Aristox. Frg. 55 Wehrli = Frg II. 4.40 Kaiser. While this negative evaluation is largely motivated by intellectual polemic and definitely not by the Tacitean ideal of sine iraet studio, it nevertheless forms an important part of the nuanced reception of Socrates in the early imperial era. In the writings of Luke's and Plutarch's contemporary Dio Chrysostom, doubtless a member of the educated upper class, we find evidence that Socrates' reputation for being uneducated and uncultured could even be used affirmatively for literary self-fashioning. For an analysis of Dio's different methods of self-fashioning, see Krause 2003. In the opening paragraphs of his Olympic Discourse, written c. 97-105 CE, Klauck 2000, 25-27.Dio refers to the exemplum Socratis to dissociate himself from contemporaneous sophists: Employing a thoroughly Platonic template, he envisions them as the enemies of true philosophy. DioChrys. Orat. 12.9-15; Doring 1979, 91-94. Dio's texts contain further evidence of a passionate critique of sophists of his day (Wyss 2017, 186-204; Becker 2019a). In contrast to the false pretentions of sophists, Dio expressly underscores his ignorance: DioChrys. Orat. 12.5; 12.13-14; cf. Plat. Apol.20c, 23b, and von Arnim 1898, 443-445. He not only speaks about his “own inexperience and lack of knowledge” (), DioChrys. Orat. 12.14.but he also introduces himself as a “layman and prater” (). DioChrys. Orat. 12.16.The following lines remarkably exemplify a strategic rhetorical self-abasement of programmatic importance:

But notwithstanding, I declare to you that, great as is your number, you have been eager to hear a man who is neither handsome in appearance nor strong, and in age is already past his prime, one who has no disciple, who professes, I may almost say, no art or special knowledge either of the nobler or of the meaner sort, no ability either as a prophet or a sophist, nay, not even as an orator or as a flatterer, one who is not even a clever writer, who does not even have a craft deserving of praise or of interest, but who simply -- wears his hair long! (Orat. 12.15) Translation by Cohoon 1939, 19.

Certainly, the statements concerning Dio's education, intelligence, and rhetorical ability can by no means be taken at face value. Rather, they serve two purposes: By fashioning himself as a Socratic philosopher, In other texts, Dio also mentions long hair and beard as features of the typical philosopher (Orat. 35.2-3; 35.11-12; 47.25; 72.2). For an annotated (new) edition of some of Dio's texts devoted to the appearance, reputation and character of philosophers, see Nesselrath 2009.Dio, on the one hand, intends to strengthen his authority as a teacher who is about to speak -- in the Olympic Discourse (Orat. 12) -- about matters of religious art, knowledge of God and philosophical theology in a way that differs from sophistic rhetoric. On the other hand, he presents a critique and revaluation of a certain type of bookish or technical nai6da characteristic of the sophists. As emphasized in the above-quoted key passage, the distinction between a truly philosophic modus vivendi and the theoretical study of the “arts” () and “skills” (ematqqai) that can be learned in schools and intellectual circles lies at the core of this disdainful reassessment. By taking Socrates as his example, Dio ultimately favours an approach that does not place significance on general studies () as a prerequisite for the philosophical life. For a survey of ancient ºóêèêÀþå; xaiSeia, see Kuhnert 1961, 3-70; Morgan 1998, 33-39, 50-89. In another text devoted to the personal appearance of philosophers (Orat. 72), Dio reiterates his point that true philosophy is not to be confused with any form of school- ish or even higher education by adding to the role model of Socrates that of Diogenes. Cf. also DioChrys. Orat.4.29-31, where Diogenes voices criticism of traditional xaiSeia.For the lively reception of Diogenes in philosophical schools and among the pagan educational elite in the early imperial era, see, e. g., Dio's discourses 6, 8, 9, and 10; Epict.Diss. 3.22; Billerbeck 1978, 7-8; Dihle 1989, 91-95. Diog.Laert.Vit.phil. 6.20-81 provides an account of his life that engages with earlier traditions.Although both philosophers had a reputation for being technically uneducated, Dio says that “though each of us has the garb of Socrates and Diogenes, in intellect we are far from being like those famous men (), or from living as they did (), or from uttering such noble thoughts (; )”. DioChrys. Orat.72.16; translation by Crosby 1951, 191. An assessment like that plainly documents that for Dio the educational background, let alone higher education, is of no relevance with regard to philosophical wisdom. Consequently, in his speech to the Athenians (Orat. 13), he deliberately puts on the mask of Socrates to challenge and to criticize traditional concepts of nai6da. DioChrys. Orat. 13.14-37. Against this backdrop, Luke's depiction of Peter's and John's illiteracy appears in a different light.

Dio's use of the example of Socrates (and Diogenes) as an argument in a debate about is part of a vibrant Hellenistic and early imperial discourse. Various philosophers from Cynic, Stoic, Cyrenaic, Epicurean, and Sceptic backgrounds are attested to have questioned the relevance of education, or, to put it more precisely, of the (in Greek texts) or the artes liber ales (in Latin texts). Antisthenes, Diogenes, Zeno of Citium, Aristo of Chios, Aristippus, Epicurus, Pyrrho of Elis, Seneca and Epictetus all ; partly describing it as useless for the philosophical life, partly raising serious doubts about its potential to engender virtue. Kuhnert 1961, 99-111; Stuckelberger 1965, 31-39; Becker 2019c, 205-206; see, e. g., Epic.Frg. 227 Usener; Cic.De fin.1.71-72; Sen. Epist. 88; Epict.Diss. 1.4.5-12; Diog.Laert.Vit.phil. 2.71; 2.79; 6.2728; 6.73; 6.103-104; 7.32. Illustrating how education can prevent people from engaging with philosophy, Epictetus describes how certain individuals in his audience reject his teachings because he transgresses the rules of grammar () and does not make proper use of Greek in his lectures (). Epict.Diss. 3.9.14: ou5rv r|vî 'Å-òêòã|Òîñ;,ºàî\î³ê³(º spappapiZev; cf. Reiser 1999, 1-3, at 3. Avoiding barbarismi ac soloecismi was an important part of formal rhetorical training (Quint. Inst. 1.5.5-54; Siebenborn 1976, 43-52). In one strand of the philosophical critique of education, the question was discussed whether ypappaxa and litterae are needed at all to gain wisdom; this helps to shed new light on the connotation of dypdppaxoc; in Acts 4:13. Antisthenes is known to have taught “that those who have acquired a sound mind () should not learn ypappaxa so that they will not be distracted by alien things (;).” Diog.Laert.Vit.phil. 6.103. Irrespective of whether the phrase ypappaxapav Gaveiv here refers to elementary education in reading and writing or to the more advanced study of grammar and literature at school, Antisthenes' critique is severe and fundamental, presenting the ypappaxa as obstacles that prevent students from practicing philosophy as they should. Kuhnert 1961, 101 n. 1.Kuhnert also points out that the Cynics were more hostile to education in theory than in practice. In similar fashion, in his 88th epistle to Lu- cilius, Seneca denies that the liberaliastudia are necessary to attain virtue and wisdom, Sen. Epist. 88.32: Potestquidemetiamilluddici, sine liberalibusstudiisveniriadsapientiam posse; quamvisenimvirtusdiscenda sit, tamen non per haecdiscitur; for a similar argument, see DioChrys. Orat.4.29-31. Sen. Epist. 88.32. In like manner, the Epicureans are said to have encouraged prospective students to avoid the pa9r|paxa (Plut. Contr. Epic. beat.1094d-e). Sen. Epist. 71.6-7. For a similar argument, see Epict. Diss. 2.16.32-36, where Epictetus puts the study of “introductions” (eiaaywyai) and the reading of Chrysippean treatises into contrast with the modus vivendi (and moriendi) of Socrates and Diogenes.raising the provocative question: “Why should I think that the one who does not know letters will not be a sage, when wisdom is not in letters?” (Quid estautemquareexistimem non futurumsapientemeum qui litterasnescit, cum sapientia non sit in litteris?).8 In another epistle, Seneca juxtaposes contemporaneous philosophical teaching and the Socratic approach: Rather than paying attention to teachers who reduce philosophy to mere “word-play” (luduslitterarius) and “syllables” (syllabae), trying to make it “difficult” (difficilis),Lucilius is supposed to follow those who invented true philosophy, such as Socrates, “who summoned the whole of philosophy back to matters of conduct” (qui totamphilosophiamrevocavit ad mores)/

Given that Luke and his educated audience were familiar with this Socratic element of contemporaneous first century discourse on the disadvantages of education, the picture of Peter (and John) in Acts 4:13 gains an important nuance. The recipients of the auctorad Theophilum can see, as it were, a philosophical Peter (and John), irrespective of the fact that the apostles do not teach philosophical wisdom, but bring the tidings of salvation in Jesus' name. Acts 4:12. Read in this light, the message of the text is not so much concerned with historical information about the actual lack of education of early Christian teaching figures like Peter, and even less with the depiction of Christianity as a religion of the uneducated. Rather, as óðàööàòàand naideta are equally irrelevant for true philosophy, so faith in the saving and healing power of Jesus' name does not require any educational prerequisites. Cf. von Campenhausen 1960, 30. As Erlemann 2000, 89-90 puts it: “Die Wahrheit der neuenLehreistvomBildungsniveauihrerTrager und von der (defizitaren) sprachlichen Form unabhangig.” Moreover, Luke's reference to the “boldness” (nappqma) of the apostles clearly expresses the opinion that there is no need for uneducated people to feel ashamed of speaking about their religion. The same point is conveyed through the portrayal of the simple tentmakers Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:2-3), who do not shy away from teaching the erudite Alexandrian scholar and missionary Apollos about certain details of the Christian faith (Acts 18:24-26); cf. Lentz 1993, 17. Hence, this Socratic reminiscence marks common ground between Christianity and Greco-Roman philosophy, and it helps to see beyond a portrayal of the apostles which supposedly conveys the notion that they are simpletons. If an erudite orator like Dio can refer to the exemplum Socratis by calling himself a “layman and prater”, DioChrys. Orat. 12.16. it is not unreasonable to think that one of the most educated authors of the New Testament could have had more in mind when he penned down the words/ While Dio's Socratic self-fashioning serves to justify his philosophical authority, Luke is more concerned with Peter's divine authority: Not only is he introduced as speaking with the help of the holy Spirit, Acts 4:8; Hilton 2018, 155-161. his lack of education also is supposed to show that what he proclaims about Jesus is not the product of human invention or sophistication. Lentz 1993, 21; Erlemann 2000, 87-90; cf. Orig. Cels.1.62; Adams 2015, 134. The support of the divine ëvºépà is a major difference vis-a-vis the pursuit of wisdom among contemporaneous philosophers.

Obeying God

Ever since Plato's depiction in the Apology, Socrates represents a type of philosopher who perceives himself as being divinely sent to people in order to teach them true philosophical virtue. Plat. Apol. 23b: vuvnepuwv(ðòøêà¿epeuvwêàòà Thv 9eov; 23b: òô9åô por|9o>v ºóẳêóèöà¿; 23c: á³àrvòîé 9eou \àòðºàv; 28e: òîèáã9eou 'tarrov'roc; [...] cpiXoaocpouvraöå 6etv (rjv; 30a: rvsppvòô 9åô éÿr|ðºààv; 31a: å³öã| ò³òàaAAovî 9åîñ upivsnmrpyeievêr|á6pºvoñ; upwv [...] ºóøTOYxavwfivòîþéòîñ oiocéÿîòîé 9eou òðÿî\º³ áºáîî9à³; cf. Erler2002, 401-402, who remarks that the word sninrpneiv in Plat. Apol. 31a has a religious ring to it, indicating a divine sending. As shall be seen, this aspect of the reception of Socrates is of special significance for Epictetus, who on his part developed the concept of the ideal Cynic as being a messenger sent by Zeus. Epict.Diss. 3.22.23; 3.22.45-46; Billerbeck 1978, 78-79, 106-107. In similar fashion, Luke presents the apostles as being sent by the risen Jesus, who tells them that they will receive the empowerment of the holy Spirit in order to be his witnesses “to the end of the earth”. Acts 1:8. Yet, having a message to spread is not the only thing which Socrates and the apostles have in common; it is also interesting to note that both in Luke and in Epictetus their obedience to God is challenged in a very specific judicial context. Socrates' imprisonment as well as his trial were well-known among the educated first century elite, see, e. g., Sen. Epist. 24.4; 28.8; 67.7; 70.9; 71.17; Epict. Diss. 1.12.23; 2.2.15; 2.5.18-19; 4.4.22; DioChrys.Orat.43.8-12; Plut.De tranquil.anim. 466e. Luke's narratives in Acts 4:2-22 and 5:17-42 are especially relevant in this regard, because they both lead up to a climax showing and underscoring that Jesus' witnesses remain faithful. Although John is named repeatedly in those chapters, Acts 4:6; 4:13; 4:19. the spotlight clearly is on Peter. Acts 4:8; 4:13; 4:19; 5:3; 5:8-9; 5:15; 5:29. As representatives of the apostles in a pars pro toto sense, Acts 4:33; 4:35-37; 5:2; 5:12; 5:18; 5:29; 5:40. they teach about Jesus and perform miracles Acts 3:11-26; 5:12-16. until they are twice arrested, incarcerated and interrogated by Jewish authorities. In both hearings, Peter, John and the other apostles are told by the Sanhedrin “not at all to utter a sound or to teach in the name of Jesus” (Acts 4:17-18, at 4:18: or “not to speak in the name of Jesus”). In both cases Peter and John do not obey the orders of the court, indicating twice the reasons for their action. The first passage reads:

But Peter and John said, answering them: “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you (must) judge. For we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.” But they, issuing threats, let them go [...]. (Acts: 4:19-21a)

The second passage reads:

But Peter and the apostle's, answering, said: “One has to obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers has raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a piece of wood [sc. cross]. This one God has exalted by his right hand as leader and saviour, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And we are witnesses to these events, and so is the holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him.” (Acts 5:29-32)

Both passages revolve thematically around obedience to God, The Gethsemane episode provides further evidence of the importance of this theological theme in Luke-Acts (Luke 22:42: nTpvppòî 9ºËã| pa pîuàËËà òî ctov yivsCT9w; parr. Mark 14:36; Matt 26:39). Mussies 1972, 105 quotes DioChrys. Orat 30.8 as a parallel to the Lukan verse illustrating the confidence of dying philosophers (such as Charidemus) in God's good will. Of course, one might also think of Socrates' response to Criton concerning his imminent death: “If it so pleases the gods, so be it” (Plat. Crit. 43d: siòàéòã| òîé; 9sîtñ ôÀî òàéòã| ºñòòø).For a monotheistic version of this Socratic maxim (siòàéòã| 9v òô 9åô, òàéòã| yivsCT9w), see Epict. Diss. 1.29.18; 4.4.21. erasing almost all memory of Peter's threefold denial of Jesus. Cf. Luke 22:54-62; Mark 14:53-54.66-72; Matt 26:57-58.69-75. Peter's change of behaviour can best be explained by the fact that in Acts Luke is eager to portray the apostles as being divinely sent as

witnesses of the risen Lord (Acts 1:8). As such, they are inspired and strengthened by the holy Spirit (Acts 1:8; 2:1-4; 4:8; 4:31; 5:32), who does not play any role in the episode of Peter's denial of Jesus. The witness terminology in Acts 5:32 clearly refers back to Peter's sermons in Acts 3:15, 2:32, and to the words of the risen Lord in Acts 1:8. While scholars interpreting Acts 5:29 have drawn attention to Plato's depiction of Socrates' trial and his decision to obey God rather than the judges, Keener 2013, 1218, who mentions Plat. Apol. 29d (ÿº³àîðೠᣠpaXAnvòô 0åô q up!v). it has largely been neglected that for Luke's contemporary Epictetus Plato's Apology also serves to illustrate the importance of obeying God. Epictetus' main point in quoting passages from the Apology which deal with the trial of Socrates is to show how a man acts who fully realizes that he is akin to God. Paraphrasing Plato's words, the Roman Stoic depicts Socrates saying the following:

“If you tell me now" says he [sc. Socrates], “`We will acquit you on these conditions, namely, that you will no longer engage in these discussions which you have conducted hitherto, nor trouble either the young or the old among us,' I will answer, `You make yourselves ridiculous by thinking that, if your general had stationed me at any post, I ought to hold and maintain it and choose rather to die ten thousand times than to desert it, but if God has stationed us in some place and in some manner of life we ought to desert that.'” This is what it means for a man to be in very truth a kinsman of the gods. Translation by Oldfather 1961, 71.(Epict.Diss. 1.9.23-25)

Although Luke in Acts 4-5 neither employs the figurative language of holding a position in the military sense to describe the apostles' faithfulness in spreading the message of Jesus, nor devotes attention to the philosophical theme of kinship with God, This he clearly does later in Acts 17:28, where the Lukan Paul quotes from the proem of Aratus' Phaenomena. there is an interesting analogy of threat and theological justification:

While Peter and the apostles are forbidden by the Sanhedrin to speak in the name of Jesus, Socrates' judges want to force him to stop teaching philosophy. Acts 4:17-18; 5:40; Epict. Diss. 1.9.23; cf. Plat. Apol. 29c. Unimpressed by the threats, both the Lukan Peter and the Epictetean Socrates are determined to continue to do what they do, Acts 4:20; 5:32; Epict. Diss. 1.9.24; cf. Plat. Apol. 29d: ÿº³àîðೠᣠðà\À òô 0åô q éðî/, ê೺øàÿºðavºpÿv£wêà³î³îñ; òå &,îÎ ð ÿàèàøðà³ô³Àîàîôàãó; cf. Hilton 2018, 147. providing each the same genuinely theological reason: Peter refers to obedience to God in a general sense, and Socrates pictures himself more specifically as a soldier who has to obey orders without deserting or defecting, alluding to the divine command that he should live the philosophical life and teach the Athenians virtue. Acts 4:19; 5:29; Epict. Diss. 1.9.24; cf. Plat. Apol.28d-e, 29d. On Socrates' military service, see Plat. Lach.181b; Plat.Symp.220c-221c; Sen. Epist. 104.27 (laboresmilitares);Epict.Diss. 4.1.160. Plat. Apol.37e-38a. Epictetus only implies that obeying the judges would mean to “disobey” (àﺳ0ºãó) God, a point Plato makes more explicit in the Apology.105 However, in another of his dissertations the Roman Stoic expressisverbis combines the image of a soldier holding his position with a Socratic theology of obedience:

For this reason the good and excellent man, bearing in mind who he is, and whence he has come, and by whom he was created, centres his attention on this and this only, how he may fill his place in an orderly fashion, and with due obedience to God. Translation by Oldfather 1959, 215.(Epict.Diss. 3.24.95)

In the context of this passage, Socrates is explicitly mentioned as an example of the “good and excellent man” (êàËîñêà¿àóà0îñ;). Epict.Diss. 3.24.99; cf. Doring 1979, 52-55. Generally, Epictetus places great emphasis on the gods' governance of the cosmos, which is why it is important to be “well-pleasing to” (ºîàðºñòòºãó) and “to follow the gods” (ºÿºñò0à³ TotcGeotc), see, e. g., Epict. Diss. 1.12.5-9; Epict.Ench. 31.1 Boter(òî ÿº[0ºñò0ø ñøòîÒñ; [sc. òî¿ñGeotc] ê࿺¿êºãó ïàñò³ òî¿ñyivopsvoic).In light of Socrates' self-fashioning as presented by Epictetus, Luke's Peter embodies a Socratic virtue. Of course, it should be kept in mind that obeying God was a general concern to various philosophers in the early imperial period, with Socrates being one, albeit very significant, example; cf. DioChrys. Orat.2.72 (the ideal king obeys the gods: Geotc Y£pqvTotcapstvoCTivºÿºñò0à³, êà0àÿºð [...] vopeuCTivaYdGotc); Orat.13.10 (ÿºGºñòGøòôGºô in the context of oracular utterances); Muson.Diatr. 16, p. 87.9-10 Hense: The philosopher is supposed “to follow Zeus” (ensCTGdi [...] òô ij¿). And according to Seneca, philosophy “will admonish us that we obey God with pleasure” (Sen. Epist. 16.5: adhortabiturutdeolibenterpareamus).

Conclusion

In a very general sense, the findings of the present study confirm that the work of learned first-century Christian writers like Luke, whose style and thought is otherwise deeply influenced by the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint), fits well within the context of contemporaneous Greco-Roman intellectual discourses. Feldmeier 2012; Becker 2016b; Becker 2020.Niehoff 2018 makes a similar point in regard to the works of Philo, demonstrating that his intellectual development was heavily affected by both Greek philosophy and his contacts with the intellectual community in Rome. Against the backdrop of first and early second-century receptions of the exemplum Socratis the great Athenian philosopher and the apostle Peter share important discursive similarities. Of course, in almost all passages dealt with here Peter is not the only character to be associated with Socratic traits. Nevertheless, it goes without saying that the disciple-turned-fisherman from Galilee joins Jesus and Paul in being one of Luke's major protagonists, and he undoubtedly has a special status among the Twelve: In many instances, he acts as the spokesperson for the group, This can clearly be seen, e. g., in Luke 8:45; 9:33; 12:41; 18:28; Acts 1:15; 2:14; 4:8; 5:3. and when several disciples are named in a list, Peter ranks first. Luke 6:14; 8:51; 9:28; 9:32; 22:8; Acts 1:13; 1:15; 2:14; 2:37; 3:1; 3:3; 4:13; 4:19; 8:14. For this reason, he is the main object of socratization as far as the inner circle of Jesus is concerned. In particular, two aspects contribute to the Socratic colouring of the image of Peter in Luke- Acts, namely Socrates' lack of formal education and his obedience to God. It is important to underscore that these aspects are peculiar to Luke, not being attested explicitly elsewhere, neither in the Synoptic Gospels nor in the Gospel of John. The image of an illiterate and largely uneducated Peter is, by the way, not the only image of the apostle to be found in the New Testament (cf. Becker 2019b, 172 n. 58). On the contrary, First and especially Second Peter, despite their pseudonymity, promote the image of Peter as a quite educated apostle who writes a fairly polished Greek, who shows acquaintance with philosophical terminology and doctrines (cf. 2 Peter 1:4: Geld ôèñò³ñ, 1:5: àðºòã|, 3:10-12: ekpyrosis), and who can read and understand Paul's epistles (cf. 2 Peter 3:15-16); for more details on the educational background of the authors of First and Second Peter, see Grunstaudl 2013, 12-14; Adams 2015, 134-137; Kraus 2017, 234-246. Hence, in addition to the episodic portrayals of Jesus through the blurry lens of the Socrates moriens and of Paul through the sharper lens of the Socrates philosophans, Peter serves as yet another literary projection screen used to display -- at certain points in the narrative -- important nuances of the multi-faceted picture of Socrates. While Christian theologians, from the second century onwards, explicitly labelled the Christian religion as the true philosophy, Lohr 2010. Luke is among those New Testament authors who ultimately paved the way that was to lead in this direction. Cf. Feldmeier 2012, 92-93. The reception of Socrates, reflected in the characterization of three of his main protagonists with varying degrees of lucidity, is, as it were, one of the many intellectual cobblestones he used to build that road. For other intellectual `cobblestones' Luke used, see Becker 2020.