Parsimony favors explanations that account for the evidence with fewer assumptions. It helps interpreters assess proposed sources and revisions without reducing a story to one meaning.
Parsimony, often called Occam’s razor, is the principle of preferring an explanation that accounts for the evidence without unnecessary assumptions. An interpreter who proposes a lost document has to explain what it accounts for that the surviving texts cannot.1 The preference for fewer assumptions applies only when the explanation still accounts for the evidence; a complicated history may be necessary if a simpler account leaves parts of the text unexplained.2
Repetition Is Not Enough to Establish Another Source
When a biblical narrative repeats an instruction or conversation, an interpreter might propose that an editor combined different accounts. Authors also repeat passages deliberately, making small changes noticeable through otherwise familiar language. A repeated instruction can prepare for its fulfillment, while a repeated conversation can reveal how a character changes the account. These uses of repetition deserve consideration before an interpreter proposes an additional author or document.3
In Ruth 2:7, the foreman tells Boaz about a conversation with Ruth that the narrator has not previously described. There is no need to supply a lost passage to explain the missing scene, since the narrator can introduce an earlier event through a character’s report. Some conversations are described as they happen, while others become known through what the characters later say about them.4
An explanation that assumes one author still needs to account for inconsistencies that might indicate revision. Repetition alone cannot decide the question: a speaker can repeat a phrase after a digression, and an editor can repeat a phrase after adding a passage. The content and style of the intervening passage help determine which explanation fits, rather than a prior decision about how many authors a book should have.5
Similarity Does Not Establish Direct Dependence
Similar commandments, images, or episodes can be compared without assuming that one author used another. In comparisons between the Dead Sea Scrolls and rabbinic tradition, similar rulings can illuminate Jewish interpretation without establishing a direct sequence of transmission between particular communities. An interpreter who proposes that historical connection has another claim to support beyond the resemblance itself.6
Q is a proposed source used to explain teaching Matthew and Luke share beyond their agreements with Mark. One explanation dispenses with Q by proposing that Luke knew Matthew directly, but this requires an account of how Luke selected and rearranged Matthew’s teaching. The appeal to Occam’s razor depends on explaining those details, rather than simply removing a document from the proposed history.7
Fewer documents can require more assumptions about how an author used them. James and the Gospel traditions share teachings that might reflect a common tradition, use of Q, or knowledge of a Gospel. Each proposal has to explain the concentration of parallels and their differences. Appealing to a common tradition may leave particular agreements unexplained, while claiming direct dependence may go beyond what the language establishes.8
A Story Can Have More Than One Meaning
In Genesis 37, the narrator presents Joseph from several perspectives, including those of Jacob and his brothers, while revealing comparatively little of Joseph’s own response. The interpreter encounters a divided family whose members understand events differently. Explaining those events entirely from one character’s perspective would remove differences the author has preserved.9
Parables also allow several interpretations without supporting whatever association an interpreter invents. In Matthew 20:1–16, identifying the vineyard owner with God directs attention toward a theological explanation of the wages. The story also describes hiring, unemployment, payment, and resentment among workers, economic relationships that can be overlooked in a reading focused entirely on salvation. Giving the parable one lesson can leave some of its details unexplained.10
Some assumptions are less conspicuous when they belong to a familiar interpretation. Discussions about the status or treatment of women can begin with different judgments about biblical authority, women’s experience, and the purpose of interpretation. What seems straightforward within one approach may depend on commitments another approach does not share.11 An interpreter may explain a passage by giving another passage priority, without examining the decision about which text should govern the other.12
Cynthia Edenburg, “Falsifiable Hypotheses, Alternate Hypotheses and the Methodological Conundrum of Biblical Exegesis,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 132.3 (2020): 391–392.
Lutz Doering, “Parallels without ‘Parallelomania’: Methodological Reflections on Comparative Analysis of Halakhah in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Rabbinic Perspectives, ed. Steven D. Fraade et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 19–21.
Paul Foster, “Q and James: A Source-Critical Conundrum,” in James, 1 & 2 Peter, and Early Jesus Traditions, ed. Alicia J. Batten and John S. Kloppenborg, Library of New Testament Studies 478 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014), 20–22.
Article
Parsimony Favors Explanations With Fewer Assumptions
How Literary and Biblical Interpretation Weigh Assumptions Against Evidence
Parsimony favors explanations that account for the evidence with fewer assumptions. It helps interpreters assess proposed sources and revisions without reducing a story to one meaning.
Parsimony, often called Occam’s razor, is the principle of preferring an explanation that accounts for the evidence without unnecessary assumptions. An interpreter who proposes a lost document has to explain what it accounts for that the surviving texts cannot.1 The preference for fewer assumptions applies only when the explanation still accounts for the evidence; a complicated history may be necessary if a simpler account leaves parts of the text unexplained.2
Repetition Is Not Enough to Establish Another Source
When a biblical narrative repeats an instruction or conversation, an interpreter might propose that an editor combined different accounts. Authors also repeat passages deliberately, making small changes noticeable through otherwise familiar language. A repeated instruction can prepare for its fulfillment, while a repeated conversation can reveal how a character changes the account. These uses of repetition deserve consideration before an interpreter proposes an additional author or document.3
In Ruth 2:7, the foreman tells Boaz about a conversation with Ruth that the narrator has not previously described. There is no need to supply a lost passage to explain the missing scene, since the narrator can introduce an earlier event through a character’s report. Some conversations are described as they happen, while others become known through what the characters later say about them.4
An explanation that assumes one author still needs to account for inconsistencies that might indicate revision. Repetition alone cannot decide the question: a speaker can repeat a phrase after a digression, and an editor can repeat a phrase after adding a passage. The content and style of the intervening passage help determine which explanation fits, rather than a prior decision about how many authors a book should have.5
Similarity Does Not Establish Direct Dependence
Similar commandments, images, or episodes can be compared without assuming that one author used another. In comparisons between the Dead Sea Scrolls and rabbinic tradition, similar rulings can illuminate Jewish interpretation without establishing a direct sequence of transmission between particular communities. An interpreter who proposes that historical connection has another claim to support beyond the resemblance itself.6
Q is a proposed source used to explain teaching Matthew and Luke share beyond their agreements with Mark. One explanation dispenses with Q by proposing that Luke knew Matthew directly, but this requires an account of how Luke selected and rearranged Matthew’s teaching. The appeal to Occam’s razor depends on explaining those details, rather than simply removing a document from the proposed history.7
Fewer documents can require more assumptions about how an author used them. James and the Gospel traditions share teachings that might reflect a common tradition, use of Q, or knowledge of a Gospel. Each proposal has to explain the concentration of parallels and their differences. Appealing to a common tradition may leave particular agreements unexplained, while claiming direct dependence may go beyond what the language establishes.8
A Story Can Have More Than One Meaning
In Genesis 37, the narrator presents Joseph from several perspectives, including those of Jacob and his brothers, while revealing comparatively little of Joseph’s own response. The interpreter encounters a divided family whose members understand events differently. Explaining those events entirely from one character’s perspective would remove differences the author has preserved.9
Parables also allow several interpretations without supporting whatever association an interpreter invents. In Matthew 20:1–16, identifying the vineyard owner with God directs attention toward a theological explanation of the wages. The story also describes hiring, unemployment, payment, and resentment among workers, economic relationships that can be overlooked in a reading focused entirely on salvation. Giving the parable one lesson can leave some of its details unexplained.10
Some assumptions are less conspicuous when they belong to a familiar interpretation. Discussions about the status or treatment of women can begin with different judgments about biblical authority, women’s experience, and the purpose of interpretation. What seems straightforward within one approach may depend on commitments another approach does not share.11 An interpreter may explain a passage by giving another passage priority, without examining the decision about which text should govern the other.12
Notes