If Adam Had Not Sinned : The Reason for the Incarnation From Anselm to Scotus

Since 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. * * * pp. 93-4 (PDF pp. 114-5) cites Grosseteste's interesting argument based on Genesis 2:24 and Ephesians 5:32: > Adam prophesied, before his fall, the marriage of Christ and the church, saying, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and will cleave to his wife, and there will be two in one flesh.” About this the Apostle said, “This great mystery is of Christ and the church.” [...] while knowing and believing nothing about the sin of the human race, which was to come, he believed in the marriage of Christ and the church. > *DCL* III.1.20; p. 127, 3–6: “Item, Adam ante lapsum suum prophetavit matrimonium Christi et ecclesiæ, dicens: *Quamobrem relinquet homo patrem et matrem et ad­ herebit uxori sue; et erunt duo in carne una.* De quo dicit apostolus: *Sacramentum est hoc magnum in Christo et ecclesia*.” [...] *DCL* III.1.20; p. 127, 13–15: “Nihil igitur de peccato humani generis quod esset futurum sciens vel credens, credidit matromonium Christi et ecclesiæ.” Discusses the arguments like [Hales's based on the diffusivity of goodness](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/81105/1787). p. 162 (PDF p. 183) n. 3: "The *Summa Halensis* is variously referred to in the literature as the *Summa theologiae* of Alexander of Hales, the *Summa fratris Alexandri* , and the *Summa fratris minorum* or *Summa minorum* [∵ it was a collaborative work]." ≠ *Glossa* ≠ *Quaestiones disputatae “antequam esset frater”*. p. 164 (PDF p. 185) n. 11 cites [*Quæstiones antequam* q. 15, d. 2, m. 4, n. 47](http://clt.brepolis.net/llta/pages/Toc.aspx?ctx=1911081): > Item, proprium summae bonitatis est se declarare per bonitatem creatam; ergo summe declarat se per summum in creatura sicut est possibile. Sed summa bonitas non esset [in] creatura quam contingit intelligi, nisi esset incarnatio: non enim pervenit pura creatura ad illam bonitatem, ad quam pervenire potest creatura unita deitati; ergo conveniebat incarnationem fieri etiam si non esset passio. Contents 8 Acknowledgments 10 Abbreviations 12 Introduction 14 1. The Reason for the Incarnation 22 2. After Anselm 54 3. Robert Grosseteste 92 4. The Dominicans at Paris 132 5. The Franciscans at Paris 183 6. Ratio Incarnationis 218 Bibliography 254 Index 264 "A study of the medieval debates over the reason for the incarnation from Anselm of Canterbury to John Duns Scotus"