I don't think what Anselm said about God with relation to love is inconsistent with Scripture. I can't speak for Thomas. What he said, and as far as I know all Christian theologians say, is that God does not have emotions. Properly speaking, love is not an emotion at all.
He also said that to us, and in Scripture, it sometimes seems as if God has emotions of changes his reaction to us, but that is the effect of how we change, and how we perceive God based on that change. God is in fact above emotion, above love, and above reason. We are not, and we perceive God according to our mode of being, not according to his.
Aristotle and the other ancient philosophers had quite a different view of God, which Thomas didn't adopt whole hog, at all. For them god didn't will creation or even know about it. It (not he) is abstract, not a person or a personality, not loving, simply the source of all and the ground of all reality.
These ideas did have a lot of influence on Christian philosophy, even earlier than when Aristotle was reintroduced to the West by Thomas and Albert. The neoplatonic philosophers, who were followes of both Plato and Aristotle, lived at the same time as many of the early Christian thinkers in the East. So if you look at Pseudo-Dionysius and all the thionkers who were influenced by that book, that is very neoplatonic material. In the West you see it in someone like John Scotus Eriugena, or in Augustine who was at one time a neoplatonist, though to me it has a much less neoplatonic character that what you see in the East. I think the Romans were much to earthy and practical to be really good neoplatonists.
So I always find the claim that Thomas was doing something new in looking at pagan philosophy really weird myself. I'd also say that while in the Catholic Church Thomas has often been understood to be very Aristotelian, some scholars think he was much more influenced by neoplatonic thought than is usually claimed. I can't speak to this myself.