When I read the dialogue, I never got the feeling it was intended as a historical account, heck the same goes for the socratic dialogues in general. They're mostly a vehicle for philosophical discussion.
Like are we also giving Plato's account of the afterlife the same credibility?
He's also pulling in characters from a fairly large timespan, some of which (e.g. Parmenides) are unlikely to have unlikely to have overlapped with Socrates' active years.
What bothers me is that we presume too much about idiomatic usage from such ancient texts.
We currently have a very static language compared to language drift prior to the 20th, which didn't have endless TV, radio, and other sources of repeated language examples which has ossified usage and drift. The same goes for the massive amounts of written text produced in newspapers, magazines, and now the internet.
Prior to these times, most of the world was illiterate, and accent, and usage drifted significantly.
Yet even today, with all this consistency in usage, we get words shifting usage and idioms appearing.
Then we turn around and presume to understand word usage with great certainty from thousands of years ago.
Sure, OK, some things can be derived. But in my opinion, to use an example, "you know nothing John Snow" is understood now, wasn't 50 years ago, won't be 50 years from now.
Like are we also giving Plato's account of the afterlife the same credibility?
He's also pulling in characters from a fairly large timespan, some of which (e.g. Parmenides) are unlikely to have unlikely to have overlapped with Socrates' active years.