Part of a page from John Duns Scotus's book Commentaria oxoniensia ad IV libros magistri Sententiarus, showing the words: " Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate", i.e., "Plurality is not to be posited without necessity" Ockham stated the principle in various ways, but the most popular version, "Entities are not to be multiplied without necessity" ( Non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate) was formulated by the Irish Franciscan philosopher John Punch in his 1639 commentary on the works of Duns Scotus.
Ockham did not invent this principle, but the "razor"-and its association with him-may be due to the frequency and effectiveness with which he used it. Libert Froidmont, in his On Christian Philosophy of the Soul, takes credit for the phrase, speaking of " novacula occami". The phrase Occam's razor did not appear until a few centuries after William of Ockham's death in 1347.
Therefore consider now which seems the more probable to you."Ockham's razor" redirects here. You see that I have set out opposing assertions in response to your question and I have touched on quite strong arguments in support of each position. To decide by way of teaching, therefore, which assertion should be considered catholic, which heretical, chiefly pertains to theologians, the experts on divine scripture. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take his part out of the book of life and out of the holy city, and from these things that are written in this book." We clearly gather from all these that nothing should be added to sacred scripture nor anything removed from it.
Contexto: The Holy Spirit through blessed John the evangelist makes a terrible threat against those who add anything to or take anything from divine scripture when he says in the last chapter of Revelations, "If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues which are in this book.