Which to read first: Summa Theologica or Summa Contra Gentiles?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JonathanAquino
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JonathanAquino

Guest
I’m eager to plunge into St. Thomas Aquinas’ writings, but I’m not sure whether to start with his 3020-page Summa Theologica, or his 1310-page Summa Contra Gentiles.

Which is more difficult? Which requires more philosophical background? Does SCG cover a broad range of general topics on Christianity like ST, or is it more focused on apologetics? Which do you find more interesting? More useful?

Which would you start with?
 
It depends. The ST is so tightly and neatly organized, you can easily look up specific questions, objections, responses to objections, and so on. Plus every unit is “individually packaged,” so to speak.

On the other hand, the SCG can be easier to read. In general, it is more “philosophical” as well, since it is specifically addressed to the general non-Christian mind.

I like them both, in different ways.
 
by the way, some knowledge of Aristotle would be helpful, but a philosophical background is not absolutely required. You just have to pick up some of Aquinas’s terms (especially in the ST translation online, the English Fathers one).

For example: “the memory depends upon the intelligible species.” (ST I.79.6). You quickly figure out that by “species” in this translation Aquinas does not mean “species” as it would be used in biology. But he uses this term so often, you quickly figure out what he does mean by it.

I would recommend just jumping in. Peter Kreeft’s *Summa of the Summa *has really helpful footnotes, too.
 
Thanks cpayne. Just got some books of Plato and Aristotle, so I might spend a few months with those before diving into ST.
 
Hi Jonathan,

I would echo cpayne’s comments. I would add that while the ST is the more widely known/read work of Thomas, the SCG may be better in that you will familiarize yourself with more detailed arguments. For example, many object that Thomas begs the question in the ST regarding the necessity of a first mover. However, the ST is simply a summary of the arguments, so it can be tempting to agree with such an assessment, even though it overlooks Thomas’ original meaning.

I recommend the SCG, for its combination of detail and readability.
 
Thanks punkforchrist. I was thinking about reading ST first, but now you’ve got me thinking … perhaps I should consider reading SCG first.
 
I came up with some counts of the number of times each of Aristotle’s works are referred to in the Summa Theologiae:
jonaquino.blogspot.com/2009/04/using-grep-and-uniq-to-determine.html

Basically 53% of the references to Aristotle’s works were to Nicomachean Ethics, 9% to On The Soul, 8% to Metaphysics, 7% to Rhetoric, and 7% to Physics. So I’ll be sure to read a couple of those before starting on Aquinas.
 
what i really want to know is schizophrenia going to be cut out of the dna in cloans and humans after all computers are schizophrenic as well could cause a problem in witchcraft as well there wanta be schizophrenics. if one day the matrix is proven we would UNDERSTAND SUCH KNOWLEDGE that he is in a contsant kepping up to date due to 1 billion comuters deals with him.

mabby another question why are you still searching for knowledge i hope you stop riding on my back
 
bullfrog654 said:
what i really want to know is schizophrenia going to be cut out of the dna in cloans and humans after all computers are schizophrenic as well could cause a problem in witchcraft as well there wanta be schizophrenics. if one day the matrix is proven we would UNDERSTAND SUCH KNOWLEDGE that he is in a contsant kepping up to date due to 1 billion comuters deals with him.

mabby another question why are you still searching for knowledge i hope you stop riding on my back
Click to expand...
:confused:
 
JonathanAquino said:
Thanks punkforchrist. I was thinking about reading ST first, but now you’ve got me thinking … perhaps I should consider reading SCG first.
Click to expand...
No problem. The first book of Thomas that I ever read was the SCG Book One: God. I was in high school at the time, and it really laid the foundation for everything else I was going to read. The main thing, as cpayne stressed, is that you familiarize yourself with the vocabulary Thomas uses. “Species” was mentioned, but another one is “motion,” which simply refers to change as opposed to locomotion.
 
I just thought of something else. Brian McDermott (I think this is the right name, but I didn’t check it) has out a newer translation of the ST, not the SCG. It is easier to read, and it is also abridged down to one volume (still pretty hefty, though).
 
JonathanAquino said:
I’m eager to plunge into St. Thomas Aquinas’ writings, but I’m not sure whether to start with his 3020-page Summa Theologica, or his 1310-page Summa Contra Gentiles.

Which is more difficult? Which requires more philosophical background? Does SCG cover a broad range of general topics on Christianity like ST, or is it more focused on apologetics? Which do you find more interesting? More useful?

Which would you start with?
Click to expand...

Nothing can make St. Thomas an “easy read”. IMO, there is a lot to be said for taking him in, not (as it were) by gobbling him up in fell swoop (that would lead to severe indigestion); but, by taking him a treatise at a time, & concentrating on that. If I were a complete beginner, I would start, either with the Compendium of Theology, or, with the ST. The quaestiones in the ST are grouped in fairly self-contained treatises - for instance, the treatise on the angels is a treatise of 15 quaestiones and takes up Part 1, quaestiones 50 to 64 inclusive.​

If you want some “easy” Thomism, you could try the English translation of the (unfinished) Compendium of Theology, available from Sophia Institute Press under the title “Light of Faith”. A lot of Aquinas is unfinished 😦 - OTOH, this is a man who was the author of about a hundred works, of various kinds, in slightly over 20 years.

I prefer the ST to the SCG, simply because the ST is a bit later, and so, more likely to represent his final position. FWIW, I find it less densely written - the subdivisions of the ST, are so numerous, as to make it much easier for the reader to chew on as much,or as little, as he or she can “take”.

The SCG is apologetic in intention. The ST sets out to be an introduction to theology - but gradually, it becomes a systematic theology of the Catholic Faith. It is not complete: St. Thomas left off in the course of the treatise on penance, at Part 3, Question 90, Article 4. The rest of it, as found in the English translation on-line made by the Ottawa Dominicans in 1922 (?), is a scissors-and-paste job put together from his Commentary on the Sentences, which he had written about 20 years earlier.

There is a lot more to him than the ST & the SCG. His Biblical commentaries are being translated; some day, in the far future, I hope to read his commentary on St. John’s Gospel. There is a massive amount of Mediaeval Biblical scholarship which is there for the reading, if only people knew about it.

BTW, it is an extremely good idea to read a biography of him. Such as that by the late James Weisheipl:
It has plenty to say about Aquinas the university professor, theologian, & philosopher, as well as the bare facts of his life.

These may be some use:
Hope that is some use.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top