I first heard that Augustine was a Neo-Platonist in my undergraduate philosophy program. Since then, the concept has simply been a given. Of course he was.
The major problem with this statement is that it lacks much distinctive value. It is true that Augustine was familiar with the works of the Platonists, but that hardly makes him a devoted member of a distinctive “Neo-Platonic” school. Most of the Fathers were Neo-Platonic in some sense, and indeed, most of the medievals and quite a bit of moderns are Neo-Platonic. But to stop at this “description” is to do very little indeed.
For all we know, John’s prologue has Neo-Platonic elements. Does that therefore mean we relegate his gospel to a sub-Christian standing? To paraphrase David Bentley Hart, this gets embarrassing.
Michel Barnes, with an appropriate amount of cynicism, has sought to show just how ahistorical most of these claims against Augustine actually are. In fact, he says that we only possess one or perhaps two credible histories of Augustine that seek to locate him in his intellectual and historical context. Continue reading