First some definitions:
Ockham’s aka Occam’s Razor: often appealed to within polemical discussions—and just as often misunderstood and thus, misapplied—this refers to a dictum coined by Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher William of Ockham (1287-1347 AD). It is variously known as the law of economy, law of parsimony, etc., which he stated as “pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate” meaning “plurality should not be posited without necessity” or “entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity.” The point is that when two or more competing theories are in play the simpler explanation is to be preferred: this does not guarantee that the simpler is true, truer or better but is a guideline.
Hermeneutics: often appealed to within polemical discussions—and just as often misunderstood and thus, misapplied—this does not, I repeat not, refer to, as it is often put, the art and science of biblical interpretation. Rather, this refers to the art and science of the interpretation of any text. If it was invented to interpret the Bible it would not have been named after the false god Hermes. This refers to, for example, reading a text within its own contexts: grammatical context, cultural context, historical context, considering genre, defining terms via the context in which they are found, etc. and not, for example, via etymology which for some people means reading the various definitions of a term and picking the one they prefer.
Applied: by which I mean the applying or the application of that which we derive from Hermeneutics.
Some people speak of interpretation of a text as if they are all subjective and are thus all created equal. Yet, this is not the case. For example, there is eisegesis (reading preconceived notions into a text) and exegesis (allowing the text to speak for itself and thus, deriving the meaning from it).
Focusing on biblical issues, I often run across people holding to differing views on any given theological topic and both claim that, by golly, they are basing their views on the Bible—or, a plain reading of the Bible, the Bible’s clear statements on the issue, etc.
But then, why do they differ? Beats me. Perhaps they really are simply basing their views on the Bible but perhaps not. Perhaps they really are, even subconsciously, reading preconceived notions into the text which they think they are simply reading. Perhaps they are, even subconsciously, allowing preferred theological ends guide their picking and choosing of which texts they bring into any given theological conclusion.
This brings us to applied Hermeneutics or applying to our theology that which we derive via Hermeneutics or allowing our Hermeneutical conclusions form our theology.
But to this, I propose applying Ockham’s Razor so as to form the Ockham’s Razor Schools of Applied Hermeneutics.
Let us, for example, take a view of the first few chapters of Genesis.
We can conclude that Adam and Eve where the first two people, they partook of the forbidden fruit causing the fall into sin, they birthed many sons and daughters who married each other and fast forward to a worldwide-global flood which only Noah, his wife, their sons and their sons wives survived.
We can also conclude that Adam and Eve where not the first two people but there were various pre-Adamic races, partaking of forbidden fruit means that Eve had sex with Satan causing the fall into sin, they birthed many sons and daughters who married each other as well as the pre-Adamites and fast forward to a local flood which various people groups survived.
Both of these have been proposed. Both claim to be stated outright or at least implied by the text. Yet, they are clearly quite different from each other.
So, we come to applying The Ockham’s Razor Schools of Applied Hermeneutics whereby we consider just how many direct points of contact the interpretations have directly to the text and since in this case more is better as more direct points of contact equals less appeals to what have you: vaguely related texts, etymological definitions, various and sundry commentaries, etc.
Where Ockham’s Razor comes into play is which one had to do more special pleading, which one had to be manipulated more, which one had to be forced more, which one has a better pedigree: in short which one posited plurality without necessity, which one multiplied entities beyond necessity?
Clearly, the former is very much more a straight forwards reading of the text whilst the latter gets sliced to shreds by Ockham’s Razor.
Another related issue is that basically the ultimate test of a doctrine is if and how it systematizes. For example, if you claim to hold to Trinitarian theology but you hold to a doctrine that will not systematize with Trinitarian theology then the doctrine is problematic. This is because systematic theology is about just that, ensuring proper biblical doctrines and systematizing them into a whole. Connecting various doctrines together into a unit also functions towards reducing special pleading—as well as cognitive dissonance.
Overall, just as the Razor itself, this is a general recommendation and keeping it in mind should help keep one closer to the plain text and help discern between two or more interpretive claims.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.