|
|
■ Creation, Divine Action, and the Laws of Nature 34 Indeed, he even presents some tense critiques of rabbinic interpretations that, in In other instances, however, Radak his opinion, affirm miracles unnecessarily . 2 displays notable openness to miracles and the supernatural . For example, after citing multiple approaches to the story of the Medium of Endor ( 1 Sam 28 ) —including a rationalist interpretation implied by Maimonides—Radak takes no clear position on whether or not the necromancer actually recalled Samuel from the dead . 3 In that instance, as in many others, Radak’s openness to the nonrational probably results from textual considerations : the biblical account does not yield an especially Crucially, however, regarding one aspect of the plausible alternative reading . 4 creation story, it is a theological concern that motivates Radak to insist—repeatedly and emphatically—that God violated the natural order . In Aristotle’s opinion, the laws of nature do not undergo change...
To the book |
|
|