Or did I misunderstand the question?
The ancients believed there were forces moving within the world that exhibited abilities beyond normal human capability or natural potential. Stones, trees and sky do not love, ergo love comes from some source higher/beyond the natural world. However, these forces seemed to be in need of personality because, quite reasonably, how could persons have wisdom if wisdom itself was not person-like; leastwise as far as their conception of the traits of personality, i.e. the ability to perceive, interact, self-awareness, etc. In other words: whatever wisdom (small "w") was, it was obviously aware that it was Wisdom (big "W"). And certainly not all men had wisdom ergo Wisdom favored some men more than others, presumably those men that sought It (Her?).
Now the Athenians built an entire city on this presumption. Every good postulate has defineable terms such as "if thing X in condition Y then state Z is attained." This is a core fact of scientific learning. No one disputes if copper is introduced to a flame a different thing is attained (green flame). No reason person doubts the effects of copper producing green flame so much so that when scientists see green flames they can reason-out that copper may well be present prior to performing a more formal chemical analysis of the flame.
So when the Athenians built their city in search of wisdom, Wisdom answered Her supplicants with wisdom. How many great thinkers emerged from Athens? More importantly: the constructs of rationality came from the sons of Athens. The first inquiries of "how" we know were just as important to them as what we know. The effects of that answered prayer is so abolutely manifest that it is the foundation of our civilization as much as the morality of the ancient Hebrews to which it is wed.
This being the case, if the presence of Wisdom is so manifest then is it so unreasonable to assume the possibility that Wisdom may move within our world as surely as a green flame may betray the presence of copper?
