Two excerpts from Xenophon, in which he states that Socrates avidly practised religious ceremonies promoted by Athens, are subject to two different interpretations by modern historians. For some, they are the proof that the Athenian city was only concerned with the rituals of its fellow citizens, and in no way with their beliefs. In contrast with this view, Hendrick Versnel feels that, by writing that Socrates performed ceremonies, Xenophon thinks that he proves that his master really did believe in the gods. Both of these interpretations are incorrect, as a careful new consideration of these passages can demonstrate.

In his Apology of Socrates Xenophon begins with the first speech of Socrates before his judges thus: ‘One thing that I marvel at in Meletus, gentlemen, is what may be the basis of his assertion that I do not believe in the gods worshipped by the polis (τοῦτο μὲν πρῶτον θαυμάζω Μελήτου, ὅτῳ ποτὲ γνοὺς λέγει ὡς ἐγὼ οὓς ἡ πόλις νομίζει θεοὺς οὐ νομίζω), for all who have happened to be near at the time, as well as Meletus himself, if he so desired, have seen me sacrificing (θύοντα) at the communal festivals and on the altars (ἐν ταῖς κοιναῖς ἑορταῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν δημοσίων βωμῶν).’Footnote ¹ Xenophon recounts a very similar testimony to this in his Memorabilia: ‘First then, that he rejected the gods acknowledged by the polis (οὐκ ἐνόμιζεν οὓς ἡ πόλις νομίζει θεούς), what evidence did they produce of that (ποίῳ ποτ᾽ ἐχρήσαντο τεκμηρίῳ)? He offered sacrifices constantly, and made no secret of it, now in his home, now at the altars of the polis temples (τῶν κοινῶν τῆς πόλεως βωμῶν), and he made use of divination with as little secrecy.’Footnote ²

Certain historians, such as Robert Garland, Pierre Brulé or Manuela Giordano-Zecharya, consider these excerpts as proof that only ritual had a place in the religious norms of the Greeks.Footnote ³ The religious norm would be only a ritual norm, its scope limited by the border which separates the ritual domain from the domain of belief, totally excluding the latter, or relegating it to second place.Footnote ⁴ Robert Garland thereby comments on these extracts: ‘Xenophon therefore counters what he evidently interprets as a charge of religious negligence with a bold assertion to the contrary, by depicting Sokrates as a man of exemplary piety and the victim of malicious and unfounded slander.’Footnote ⁵ Pierre Brulé adopts a similar interpretation while speaking about a ‘confusion’ in the distinction of rituals and beliefs: ‘So, in having sacrificed in full view of everyone, or by having simply taken part (being present, therefore seeing) in the sacrifice with the others, especially when these rituals are done under a political framework, this sole presence proves the acknowledgement of the city's gods and was therefore sufficient for the accused to see himself absolved of an accusation of unrighteousness.’Footnote ⁶ Other scholars take an identical point of view to that of Robert Garland. For example, for Manuela Giordano-Zecharya, ‘from these passages, we can confirm that the accusation related to nomizein concerned the omission of Athenian customary worship’. Socrates would have been accused of ‘irregularity in worship’.Footnote ⁷ It is true that we can read a link between the reality of νομίζειν θεούς and Socrates’ ceremonial actions in these extracts. For those historians the sole existence of the ritual could therefore be sufficient proof of his acknowledgement of the city's gods. Thus, by arguing that it was well known that Socrates practised Greek religion in the right way, Xenophon disclosed to historians his total lack of interest, as well as that of his Athenian contemporaries including Socrates’ accusers, in their religious belief: only ritual counts, therefore, to defend Socrates, one must mention only ritual.

Hendrick Versnel, on the other hand, has adopted an entirely opposite interpretation of these excerpts: he supposes that Xenophon wanted to signify that, ‘if a person prays or brings sacrifices, this proves that he νομίζειν θεούς in the sense of believing in the existence of gods’.Footnote ⁸

An alternative reading of Xenophon's almost identical extracts seems preferable. First, it should be emphasized that, as noted by Jean Rudhart, as far as we are aware, we do not have any law compelling a person to fulfil rituals,Footnote ⁹ while we do know of at least one law (even if its authenticity is heavily debated) regarding non-belief in the gods, namely the decree of Diopeithes of 433/432.Footnote ¹⁰ More importantly, Pierre Brulé and Robert Garland cite these statements before commenting on them, and both crop them and take them out of context whilst omitting an essential piece of information. Manuela Giordano-Zecharya and Hendrick Versnel do not make this mistake but they do not manage to grasp the huge importance of the beginning of these two extracts towards their understanding.

In his Memorabilia, before saying that Socrates practised Greek religious rituals in full view of everyone, Xenophon asks himself: ‘what evidence did they produce of that’ (ποίῳ ποτ᾽ ἐχρήσαντο τεκμηρίῳ) to say that Socrates ‘did not recognize the gods of the city’ (οὐκ ἐνόμιζεν οὓς ἡ πόλις νομίζει θεούς)? In the Apology, before declaring that he performs Greek rituals, Socrates says: ‘One thing that I marvel at in Meletus, gentlemen, is what may be the basis of his assertion that I do not believe in the gods worshipped by the polis’ (τοῦτο μὲν πρῶτον θαυμάζω Μελήτου, ὅτῳ ποτὲ γνοὺς λέγει ὡς ἐγὼ οὓς ἡ πόλις νομίζει θεοὺς οὐ νομίζω). These two sections of text form a key factor in Xenophon's argument: he has doubts about the proof, the τεκμήριον, which allowed us to suspect Socrates of not believing in the existence of the city's gods. Thus, by declaring that Socrates performed the Athenian religious ceremonies, Xenophon does not necessarily show a lack of interest in Socrates’ beliefs: he simply demonstrates that the accusers lack the evidence to allege that Socrates did not believe in Athens’ honoured gods. On the other hand, nothing says that, by emphasizing Socrates’ active practice of religious rituals, Xenophon proves Socrates’ innocence either, despite what Hendrick Versnel maintains. Xenophon simply says that the absence of Socrates’ beliefs is impossible to prove.

In other words, nowhere does Xenophon confirm that ritual practice is the absolute proof of the acknowledgement of the gods. He merely states that given Socrates’ active and visible performance of Athenian religious ceremonies, there can be no evidence of what we have accused him of. The absence of rituals could be evidence of non-recognition of the city's gods.Footnote ¹¹ In the absence of the lack of rituals, there is no proof. Thus, according to Xenophon, it is difficult to prove that somebody so obviously devout does not believe in the gods, because the actions that he carries out are related in a sense to beliefs, including the existence of the city's gods. Therefore, these excerpts prove neither that only ritual had a place in Greek religious norms nor that Socrates was prosecuted merely for his acts, or rather for his lack of acts of worship.