Occam's what!?

Occam’s what? What has shaving to do with theology?

Much in every way. But let me explain a little what I am talking about.

It happened the other day when I was in my doctor’s office to discuss a problem I was having with high blood pressure, post-op, after I had had a heart catheterization, the results of which were quite good, thanks be unto God. But some adjustment problems were persistent and I was waking up every morning at about 3:45 AM with high blood pressure and elevated blood sugar levels. I was in to consult with my doctor about what measures to take to cope with this exasperating problem.

I should explain something about my doctor. Dr. Peter Vance here in Holland is a Christian man whose vocation as an internist has not caused him to cast off his Christianity. He is a man of faith who is at the same time a fine diagnostician. This is the first time in my life that I have enjoyed a mutual Christian relationship with my doctor, and I can tell you it is quite gratifying to be able to pray with your doctor as well as bat around medical jargon. He is a delightful man of Reformed faith, which is forgivable error, in my book <big grin>.

After we had discussed the problem at some length, and speculated about various causes of the problem, and after I had expressed my own thoughts as to what was causing the problem, Dr. Vance said, “Well, there was this ancient monk named Occam…” Before he could finish his sentence, I finished it for him: “Oh, sure. You’re talking about the principle called “Occam’s Razor.” Surprised, he asked, “Do you know about Occam’s Razor?” Of course, I said, I employ it now and again in two areas; Biblical hermeneutics and theological discussion.

I could see that he was stunned that I had stolen his thunder, as they say. It was a cute moment, really, for doctors have a tendency to think that patients are kind of dull people who know little about such things. But the reason I am telling this story is that it was clear in that moment what the doctor had concluded about my complaint. Employing that principle of parsimony, he was about to tell me that I was most likely right about the medicines running out of potency about that time in the morning since that seemed to be the most parsimonious conclusion and not nearly so complicated as the other causes [organic disorders, etc.] about which we had speculated. In other words, we had a moment of mutual clarity based on a philosophical tenet about which we were both aware. Had he been aware of my knowledge of the principle, he could have merely said the two words, “Occam’s Razor,” and I would have understood completely what he was meaning.

I thought I would discuss the principle called “Occam’s Razor” here for the benefit of my readers, especially by way of an example in which I have employed the principle in biblical hermeneutics [biblical interpretation]. It is likely, I think, that many of my readers have actually employed this principle as a logical response to problems though not really knowing the principle in any formal way. It is just logical, and most of my readers are mostly logical [with a few exceptions, whose names shall go unspoken - you know who you are. :-)

To explore the benefits of the principle of Occam’s Razor to biblical interpretation, let us consider a common controversial interpretation of a passage of Scripture, namely Genesis 6: 1- 2: “Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.”

The primary issue with this text is the identity of those called here “the sons of God.” There are three primary interpretations of this text, each of which can be defended in some measure linguistically, but all of which also have problems. Thus, we need a principle to guide us in our understanding and interpretation of this text. Occam’s Razor may be able to assist us in this matter.

Let’s look at the most common interpretations of the identity of these “sons of God.” First, there is the traditional Christian interpretation that these “sons of God” are Sethites. Another view sees them as angelic beings who cohabit with human women. A third is that these sons of God are tyrannical successors to Lamech who gathered harems. This view was proposed by Jewish rabbis of the second century A.D.

Let’s rule out for our purposes the last, for there is little ancient support for this explanation, though an argument can be mounted for it. Also, its main strength is that it might help explain what was meant with the words “of all whom they chose,” but of less help as to the identity of the “sons of God.”

So, of the two remaining interpretations, which one best suits the principle of Occam’s Razor? Which one requires the most inferences and assumptions and postulates the most hypotheses? Even by the mere definition of Occam’s Razor, the reader may know by now what my conclusion is as to the interpretation of this text, but let’s discuss it for a moment to make our point.

If one assumes that these “sons of God” are angels, there arise a number of problems. For instance, how is it that angels are like human beings and can or do have sexual relations with human women? This is hardly in keeping with the common evangelical understanding that angels are spiritual beings who may take the form of humans for God’s purpose of revelation. But hardly anyone imagines that angels lived on the earth and cohabited with women in a marriage relationship - it is simply out of scriptural character and too fantastic to posit such a situation. One must make a whole series of assumptions and inferences that are supported by little or no Biblical or scientific support. Identifying these sons of God as angelic beings is not a parsimonious interpretation, but one that requires a string of assumptions and inferences. What to do? William of Occam rides to the rescue.

Yes, it is true that the interpretation that these sons of God are Sethites has its problems, too. For instance, it is far more parsimonious to interpret the sons of God as Sethites, but it does not explain why the “daughters of men” must refer specifically to Cainite women. We point this out to avoid the appearance that the matter is so clear as to be unequivocal. No, the interpretation is difficult even in the best of circumstances. But the bottom line is that we can postulate the clearest interpretation by reference to Occam’s Razor and come away with a sound and rational explanation of the text.

First, the interpretation of the sons of God as Sethites seems quite clearly to be the most contextually appropriate interpretation. Genesis chapter five has just recounted the settlement of mankind on the earth through the line of Seth in particular. This is then compatible with normal hermeneutical principles of both distant and near context. Given this interpretation, the sons of God are the godly descendants of Seth as contrasted with the cursed descendants of Cain. This makes good sense and seems believable enough, whereas the interpretation of the sons of God as angelic beings continues to have serious problems and little Biblical and theological support. Are they fallen angels, or good angels? How is it that angels can conduct physical relationships [sexual relations] and social relations [marriage] with human women? How is it that such beings could procreate and what would the children of such unions be like?

It seems clear then that the principle of parsimony favors the interpretation that these sons of God are those descendents of godly Seth as contrasted with cursed Cain. Again, that does not answer every single issue in the text, but it most certainly offers the best explanation and keeps us from the fantastic assumptions about angels that we have just mentioned. Indeed, now the interpretation of these sons of God as angels seems even perverse and weird - which I think it is, personally. Thus, the principle of Occam’s Razor prevails in this instance, providing the most satisfying and simple explanation of the meaning of the Biblical text.

So, put this bit of information in your pocket for future use as you encounter both problems in your life and problems with the interpretation of the Biblical text.

You go, William of Occam!