I must confess that my memory of +Athanasius on this exact point is not strong enough to comment on. I would need some sort of explanation/definition of what you mean by "Christian Incarnational theology". Calvinism takes the OT as it is given to us. Like in the NT, interpretation is needed when appropriate. However, editing out large swaths of text is not an option. We go by the weight of the totality of scripture.
God’s Holy Word is indeed God’s Holy Word. I submit, however, that pre-Incarnation, people, Chosen, elect or otherwise, couldn’t even come close to understanding it.
In that case the OT righteous really could not have been righteous, could they? It would mean that the prophets did not understand what they were writing as they wrote. Does that sound likely? Not to me.
“In that case the OT righteous really could not have been righteous, could they?”
That doesn’t follow at all, FK. To be “Old Testament Righteous’, so far as I know, didn’t require a Christian understanding of theosis.
“It would mean that the prophets did not understand what they were writing as they wrote. Does that sound likely? Not to me.”
Really? Read On the Incarnation again. As for what that theology is, well I think its even what the Reformers believed about the reasons for the Incarnation, but it may be that I am wrong. All this talk of the vengeful, really quite malevolent monster god of the OT that you seem to speak of is no one the Fathers would have recognized save as a bogeyman to frighten the “simple people”.