The motive for the incarnation from Anselm of Canterbury to John Duns Scotus

This dissertation reviews the thirteenth century debates over the motive for the incarnation from the time of Anselm of Canterbury to John Duns Scotus. In light of the various formulations of the motive for the incarnation in the thirteenth-century and beyond, in chapter one we formulate and clarify three questions. These questions, one hypothetical, one specific, and one generic, encompass the critical systematic juncture of issues comprising the motive for the incarnation. They are: QH: If Adam had not sinned, would the Son have become incarnate? QS: Is the redemption from sin the primary reason for the incarnation? QG: Whether and how can we determine divine reasons for divine operations ad extra? .;Chapter two clarifies Anselm of Canterbury's productive and problematic contribution of several "Anselmian theses" on QG, derived from the Cur Deus homo. Chapter three details the ways in which Robert Grosseteste developed those Anselmian theses into an affirmative response to QH, as well as the implications of his arguments for QG. Those implications center upon Grosseteste's two strategies for determining divine reasons for divine operations ad extra. Those strategies limn a set of perplexities which faced theologians reflecting on the motive for the incarnation at the turn of the thirteenth century.;We transition from Oxford to Paris in the fourth chapter. Chapter four considers, first, the impact of Peter Lombard's Sentences upon discussions of the motive for the incarnation at Paris. The chapter then moves through the positions of Guerric of St.- Quentin, Albert the Great, and Thomas Aquinas, three occupants of the Dominican Chair for Externs in the early to mid thirteenth century. The subsequent, fifth chapter considers a series of occupants of the Franciscan Chair over the same period: Alexander of Hales, the various authors of the Summa fratris Alexandri, Odo Rigaldi, and Bonaventure.;The sixth and final chapter draws together all the arguments and positions encountered in the fourth and fifth chapters. It shows that the debates over the motive for the incarnation at Paris developed in three moments. Moreover, it argues that Bonaventure and Thomas, who offer substantially the same solution, mark a summative resolution to the two preceding moments of the debate. Thus, they provide an alternative reception of the Anselmian theses than the one developed by Robert Grosseteste and favored in the first moment of the debates at Paris. Finally, the dissertation considers the reception of Bonaventure's argument by three subsequent Franciscan Masters: Matthew of Aquasparta, Richard Middleton, and John Duns Scotus. It argues that Scotus marks the start of a new moment in the debates over the motive for the incarnation, which both accepts and extends beyond the summative achievement of Bonaventure and Thomas.