A religious dogmatic system lists the beliefs in a particular religion which, in the eyes of its author, are more fundamental or essential than the others, and thus presents a criterion for distinguishing between a believer and a heretic with respect to that religion. Therefore, it is expected from any given dogmatic system to be formulated clearly and coherently. This paper critically argues that, as for the concept of divine retribution, Hasdai Crescas' dogmatic discussion in The Light of the Lord is to a certain extent unclear and inconsistent: on one hand, Crescas explicitly identifies retribution as one of the true doctrines of the Torah (emunot amitiot) and not as one of its cornerstones (pinnot); but on the other hand, he incorporates this concept into his definition of divine providence, which in itself is considered by him as a cornerstone, namely a belief that analytically follows from the belief in divine revelation. This paper outlines this apparent contradiction and discusses possible explanations of it.
|Translated title of the contribution||The Status of Divine Retribution in Hasdai Crescas' Dogmatic System|
|State||Published - 2010|