In the early 3rd century BC, the Epicurean Metrodorus of Lampsacus wrote a pamphlet titled Against the Euthyphro which is now lost. This is the oldest literary criticism of this dialogue in the ancient world.[9]
Diogenes Laertius listed the dialogue as belonging to the first tetralogy in the 1st century BC. He considered it one of the tentative dialogues and gave On Holiness as an alternate title. He also mentioned that some teachers used it as the first dialogue in their courses meaning that it was in antiquity seen as the most suitable introduction to Plato's works.[10] He also claimed that after the events of this dialogue, Euthyphro was persuaded not to prosecute his father though that is not supported by any of Plato's own writings.[11][12]
In the surviving fragment of On Plato's Secret Doctrines by Numenius of Apamea he suggests that the character of Euthyphro was entirely fictitious and represented the Athenian popular religion.[13] He reasoned that Plato had to criticize the Athenian religion in dialogue form rather than directly attacking it in order to avoid being executed like Socrates himself.[14]
In the Anonymous Prolegomena to Platonic Philosophy it is stated that the Euthyphro was Plato's first dialogue.[15]
The dialogue returned to obscurity in the Latin speaking scholarly world until it was rediscovered in the Renaissance age. The dialogue was translated into Armenian in the 11th century.[16] The Byzantine scholar Manuel Chrysoloras owned a copy of the Euthyphro. Francesco Filelfo completed the first Latin translation in 1436. Rinuccio da Castiglione completed a second translation a short time later in 1440 though it is considered of lower quality. Marsilio Ficino completed a third in 1484 in Florence in his translated collection of Plato's dialogues. The first edition of the Greek text appeared in Venice in September 1513 by Aldo Manuzio under an edition published by Markos Musuros.
The influential Plato translator Friedrich Schleiermacher did not appreciate this dialogue. He saw it as "a very inferior work compared to Laches and Charmides.[17] Olof Gigon likewise rated it poorly in the 20th century. He felt the dialogue relied too heavily on word games and semantics.[18]
Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff approved of the dialogue for separating piety from divine command theory.[19] Michael Erler praised the dialogue for showing reflection on logical and grammatical issues.[20]
One criticism of this dialogue that was raised by Peter Geach is that the dilemma implies you must search for a definition that fits piety rather than work backwards by deciding pious acts (i.e. you must know what piety is before you can list acts which are pious). It also implies something cannot be pious if it is only intended to serve the gods without actually fulfilling any useful purpose.[21]
