How should one first approach Plato's Apology?
In a few months I plan to read three sets of translations on Plato's Apology along with Euthyphro and Crito: R.E. Allen, Thomas G. West & Grace Starry West, and then Mark Kremer. Additionally, I researched and selected three in-depth commentaries. I plan to start with Socrates on Trial by Brickhouse & Smith which gives a section by section analysis of the Apology.
The other two commenters appear to have opposing views. Socrates in the Apology by C.D.C. Reeve argues Socrates presents a sincere, serious, non-ironic defense. The Ironic Defense of Socrates by David Leibowitz argues for an ironic defense where Socrates focuses on philosophical issues rather than building a true, persuasive case to the jurors. Both approaches seem to have their critics.
MY QUESTION: What is historically, or currently, the predominant view? And would one generally recommend I start with a non-ironic or ironic interpretation of the Apology on first read? I can always develop my own separate opinion in time but would like my initial approach to be the traditional or commonly accepted view.
Similar to gaslighting, it can hard to know if someone is arguing sincerity or with (covert) irony if you're not that familiar with the subject or the individual's state of mind. Political speeches in particular can be challenging to tell if the arguments are genuine, even if serious flawed, or if the speaker is being dishonest. And while an informed, educated audience can get satire, those uninformed or uneducated can take a satirical comment as the truth, as public interviews by The Daily Show repeatedly, and shockingly, demonstrate.
What would be your recommendation on a first read of the Apology? Should I assume Socrates is making sincere arguments? Or should I keep an eye out for ironic ones?