Chapter 1. The Summa Contra Gentiles and Its Context
CHAPTER 1. THE SUMMA CONTRA GENTILES AND ITS CONTEXT
1. “Aquinas” in “Thomas Aquinas” seems to denote the name of his family (de Aquino), not the place of his birth. Aquinas was related to counts of that place. But these were flourishing long before Aquinas was born. In documents written during his lifetime and after his death he is often referred to as “Brother Thomas.”
2. For scholarly biographies of Aquinas, see (in order of publication): (1) James A. Weisheipl, Friar Thomas D’Aquino (Oxford: Blackwell, 1974); Albert and Thomas: Selected Writings, edited by Simon Tugwell (New York: Paulist Press, 1988); (3) Jean-Pierre Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas: Volume 1, The Person and His Work (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1996). For medieval accounts of Aquinas’s life, see Thomae Aquinatis vitae fontes praecipuae, edited by Angelico Ferrua (Alba: Edizione Domenicane, 1968). Also see The Life of Saint Thomas Aquinas: Biographical Documents, edited by Kenelm Foster (London: Longmans, Green, 1959).
3. For discussions of the date of Aquinas’s birth, see the works cited in the previous note. Historians differ when it comes to providing a chronology for Aquinas’s life. You should bear this in mind when reading this chapter. If you look at the three works cited above, you will come to see where there is room for disagreement. For more on Aquinas’s early life see Adriano Oliva, Les Débuts de l’enseignement de Thomas d’Aquin et sa Conception de la “Sacra Doctrina” (Paris: Vrin, 2006). Also see Adriano Oliva, “Philosophy in the Teaching of Theology by Thomas Aquinas,” Thomist 76 (2012).
4. Books and articles on Aquinas these days sometimes refer to him as “Thomas,” or “St. Thomas.” In older publications one finds him frequently referred to as “the Angelic Doctor.” In this book I follow a currently standard convention by referring to him as “Aquinas.”
5. The current University of Naples bears an image of Frederick II on its crest.
6. Albert (c. 1193–1280) taught theology at the University of Paris and in Germany. He commented on almost all of Aristotle’s works as well as on some highly influential theological ones. He was canonized in 1931.
7. Some scholars date the De Principiis Naturae to a period of Aquinas’s life slightly later than the time of his stay in Cologne. Aristotle’s dates are 385–322 B.C.
8. For an introduction to Peter Lombard, see Philip W. Rosemann, Peter Lombard (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004). Lombard’s Sentences, written in the twelfth century, was the standard textbook for students and teachers of theology in Aquinas’s day.
9. Aquinas’s disputed question De Veritate (On Truth) dates from his time as Master of Theology starting in 1256.
10. For a fine historical account of the teaching context in which Aquinas worked, see Michele M. Mulcahey, “First the Bow Is Bent in Study …”: Dominican Education before 1350 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1998).
11. For an analysis of the Summa Theologiae, see Brian Davies, Thomas Aquinas’s “Summa Theologiae”: A Guide and Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014). Also see Bernard McGinn, Thomas Aquinas’s “Summa Theologiae” (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2014).
12. I commend the following books to you as presenting an overview of Aquinas’s writings: M.-D. Chenu, Toward Understanding Saint Thomas (Chicago: Regnery, 1964); Brian Davies, The Thought of Thomas Aquinas (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992); Brian Davies, Aquinas (London: Continuum, 2002); Edward Feser, Aquinas: A Beginner’s Guide (London: Oneworld, 2009); Herbert McCabe, On Aquinas (London: Continuum, 2008); Ralph McInerny, Aquinas (Cambridge: Polity, 2004); Eleonore Stump, Aquinas (London: Routledge, 2003); Denys Turner, Thomas Aquinas: A Portrait (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2013). Also see The Cambridge Companion to Aquinas, edited by Norman Kretzmann and Eleonore Stump (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), and The Oxford Handbook of Aquinas, edited by Brian Davies and Eleonore Stump (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).
13. Interest in Aquinas as a commentator on the Bible is steadily growing as I write this book, and with good reason, since Aquinas’s biblical commentaries tell us much about both his theological and philosophical views. See Aquinas on Scripture, edited by Thomas G. Weinandy, Daniel A. Keating, and John P. Yocum (London: T&T Clark International, 2005).
14. Pseudo-Dionysius is the name usually used to refer to the author of a number of influential works thought in Aquinas’s day to have been written by the disciple of St. Paul mentioned in Acts 17:34. Scholars today believe that they were written by an unknown author several centuries after New Testament times. For an English edition of the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius, see Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, translated by Colm Luibheid (New York: Paulist Press, 1987).
15. The Liber De Causis, once attributed to Aristotle, was, as Aquinas realized, a text derived from The Elements of Theology by Proclus (412–485), a Neoplatonic philosopher. For an English edition of Aquinas’s commentary on the Liber De Causis, see St. Thomas Aquinas: Commentary on the Book of Causes, translated by Vincent A. Guagliardo, Charles R. Hess, and Richard C. Taylor (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1996).
16. See Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas, 330 and following.
17. Torrell lists this as a “treatise,” along with texts like De Principiis Naturae. I do not really understand why he does so since the Compendium amounts to a survey of theology comparable to the Summa Theologiae, albeit that it is much shorter.
18. For a catalogue of Aquinas’s works, see Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas, 330–361.
19. See Summa Theologiae 2a2ae,1,8, in which Aquinas explicitly says that the articles of faith are proclaimed in the Nicene Creed.
20. De Trinitate 2,1.
21. SCG 1,3.
22. For discussions of Aquinas on faith and reason, philosophy and theology, see Frederick Christian Bauerschmidt, Thomas Aquinas: Faith, Reason, and Following Christ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), and Per Erik Persson, “Sacra Doctrina”: Reason and Revelation in Aquinas (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970).
23. Having argued philosophically for various conclusions, Aquinas, in the SCG, frequently cites biblical authority for what he has just been saying. Yet again and again in the SCG he spends a great deal of time arguing without appeal to revelation.
24. Norman Kretzmann, The Metaphysics of Theism: Aquinas’s Natural Theology in “Summa Contra Gentiles” 1 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), chapter 1.
25. Barth was very opposed to natural theology. I note texts of his that clearly indicate so, and I offer a discussion of his position in “Is God beyond Reason?” Philosophical Investigations 32, no. 4 (October 2009).
26. See Weisheipl, Friar Thomas D’Aquino, Tugwell, Albert and Thomas, and Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas. You should realize that we have a substantial part of the SCG written in Aquinas’s own hand (from 1,22 up to 3,20, though with various gaps).
27. The Leonine Commission’s critical edition of the SCG appeared between 1918 and 1930. Questions can be raised about its accuracy, though I have no intention of trying to pursue them in this book. For a technical discussion of textual problems concerning the SCG, and for some proposed corrections to the Leonine edition, see René-Antoine Gauthier, Somme Contre Les Gentils (Paris: Editions Universitaires, 1993). I am working on the assumption that the Notre Dame translation of the SCG, based on the Leonine edition of that text, takes us pretty close (Gauthier notwithstanding) to what Aquinas would have wanted English readers to be working from today when it comes to the SCG.
28. For an excellent introduction to problems concerning the ways in which writings by medieval authors such as Aquinas have come down to us, see Thomas Williams, “Transmission and Translation,” which is chapter 14 of The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Philosophy, edited by A. S. McGrade (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).
29. See Gauthier, Somme.
30. Aquinas did not read Greek. He relied on Latin translations when making use of Aristotle.
31. A summa (“summary”) was an established literary genre by the time of Aquinas. A summa was a systematic, almost encyclopedic, discussion of a large range of theological questions with attention paid to arguments for and against various positions. Peter Lombard’s Sentences would have been recognized as a summa by Aquinas, though it does not bear that title.
32. Reference to Gentiles appears in SCG manuscripts from around 1272. Note, however, that we cannot be sure that Aquinas himself named the SCG either Summa Contra Gentiles or Liber de Veritate Catholicae Fidei contra Errores Infidelium. For an author highlighting apologetic elements in the SCG, see A. Patfoort, Saint Thomas d’Aquin: Les Clefs d’une Théologie (Paris: FAC éditions, 1983), chapter 5.
33. For Aquinas’s familiarity with Islam, see Gauthier, Somme, 122.
34. See Gauthier, Somme, 172–173.
35. See Gauthier, Somme, 173.
36. ND, 1, 59 [1].
37. ND, 1, 60 [1].
38. ND, 1, 62 [2].
39. ND, 1, 62 [3].
40. ND, 1, 62–63 [4].
41. For a study of the SCG that emphasizes Aquinas’s theological commitments when writing it, see Thomas S. Hibbs, Dialectic and Narrative in Aquinas: An Interpretation of the “Summa Contra Gentiles” (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1995).
42. Kretzmann, The Metaphysics of Theism, 24.
43. I discuss certain theological objections to natural theology in “Is God beyond Reason?” For a brilliant critique of the claim that natural theology conflicts with biblical teaching, see James Barr, Biblical Faith and Natural Theology (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993). I refer to Barr again in chapter 2.
44. ND, 1, 71 [1]. By “fitting argument” Aquinas means an argument that is plausible even though not demonstrative.
45. At this point in the SCG, Aquinas does refer to Islam. He offers a brief tirade against Mohammed in which he claims that Mohammed’s teachings are grounded in the promise of carnal pleasure and that they are not supported by miracles. Aquinas also says that Mohammed gained support by force of arms and that his teachings conflict with the Old and New Testaments. This little anti-Islamic outburst of Aquinas, however, is hardly evidence that the SCG is focused on Islam or that its arguments are uniquely intended for Christian preachers in Islamic territory.
46. ND, 1, 74 [1].
47. ND, 1, 75 [7].
48. ND, 1, 77 [2].
49. ND, 1, 78 [3].