THE REASON FOR THE INCARNATION FROM ANSELM TO SCOTUS
Justus H. Hunter
THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA PRESS
WASHINGTON, D.C.
The Catholic University of America Press
All rights reserved
Cataloging-in-Publication Data available from the Library of Congress
isbn 978-0-8132-3285-0
1. The Reason for the Incarnation
This book is only possible thanks to the many teachers, colleagues, friends, and family members who supported it. At several key moments, Bruce Marshall listened carefully and offered guidance with his unique combination of patience, freedom, and uncompromising demand for rigor. William Abraham was always available to discuss my arguments, adding his own more perceptive arguments and counterarguments, and refining my thought. Natalia Marandiuc helped me to clarify what was really central to my text. Trent Pomplun gave me invaluable advice early in the preparation of the manuscript and again once it was drafted.
My colleagues and friends at Southern Methodist University spent countless hours reading chapters, hashing out arguments, and offering companionship. Daniel Houck, Jared Maddox, David Mahfood, Nathan McLellan, and Adam Van Wart all read chapters along the way. Colleagues at United Theological Seminary have been a source of continuous support and encouragement. In particular, Tom Dozeman and Anthony Le Donne guided me through the preparation and revision of the manuscript for publication. The Board of Trustees of United Theological Seminary granted a sabbatical leave for the fall of 2018 to finalize the manuscript. Finally, I am grateful to the Catholic University of America Press for its care with my manuscript, and for the insightful reviewers whose close reading and perceptive comments made for a much improved text and argument.
My parents, Wayne and Melinda Hunter, always prioritized my education, often at great personal cost. This work became possible with their sacrifices. Our sons, Justus II and Miles, gave me the laughs and breaks I needed along the way. Baby Lucy joined the fun at the end. But no one sacrificed so long and so consistently for this book as my wife, Ellen Ann Hunter. I could never repay your love, support, and faith in me; I simply accept it with gratitude.
CDH Cur Deus homo (Anselm of Canterbury)
DCL De cessatione legalium (Robert Grosseteste)
Defensiones Defensiones theologiae Divi Thomae Aquinatis (John Capreolus)
De veritate Quaestiones disputatae de veritate (Thomas Aquinas)
Glossa Glossa in quatuor libros Sententiarum Petri Lombardi (Alexander of Hales)
In Sententiarum Commentarii in III Sententiarum (Albert the Great)
Ord. Ordinatio (John Duns Scotus)
PL Patrologia Latina (ed. Migne)
Quaestio Quaestio de conceptione Christi (Albert ...
|
About If Adam Had Not Sinned: The Reason for the Incarnation from Anselm to ScotusSince the twelfth century, theologians have found a counterfactual question irresistible: “If Adam had not sinned, would the Son have become incarnate?” In the latter half of the twentieth century, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Hans Küng, Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Karl Rahner, Karl Barth, Wolfhart Pannenburg, Jürgen Moltmann, and Robert Jenson all considered this question on the reason, or motive, for the incarnation. Nearly every case refers to the classic disagreement between those who follow Thomas Aquinas and those who follow John Duns Scotus. Though it is common to claim Thomas or Scotus as one’s authority, the theological debates among which Thomas and Scotus developed their own positions remain largely neglected. This study fills that gap. If Adam Had Not Sinned is a study of the medieval debates over the motive for the incarnation from Anselm of Canterbury to John Duns Scotus. While the volume is primarily focused on thirteenth-century debates at the University of Paris, it also supplies necessary historical background to those debates. As a result, the larger context within which Thomas Aquinas and John Duns Scotus developed their influential responses is detailed. This larger context permits an analysis that leads to the surprising claim, against widespread assumptions, that the responses given by Thomas and Scotus are substantially reconcilable. |
| Support Info | fdmhdncnslmscts |