What Is the Principle of Deferred Harmonization (ZOH)?

In Evidence-Based Biblical Studies, the Principle of Deferred Harmonization holds that interpretation must not precede data analysis. As in forensic investigation, reconstruction comes only after evidence has been secured and described. Applied to biblical studies, this means clearly separating translation from interpretation. The translation stage relies solely on primary data: syntax, historical semantics, immediate pericope context, and manuscript variants. Canonical, intertextual, and traditional contexts are treated as secondary and may inform interpretation only afterward, without reshaping the base text. Harmonization is therefore postponed, not rejected. Textual tensions and divergences are preserved as meaningful data, protecting the process from confirmation bias and retrospective assumptions of coherence.

Denys Gromov | pexels.com

Key Procedural Elements of the Principle of Deferred Harmonization (ZOH)

1. Primacy of Data over Interpretation

The analytical process begins with the identification and description of available textual data. At this stage, assumptions derived from later theology, canon formation, doctrinal systems, or established interpretive narratives are explicitly excluded. Data are treated as epistemically primary and must not be subordinated to a pre-assumed meaning.

2. Separation of Analytical Stages

ZOH introduces a clear division between the translation stage and the interpretation stage. Translation is descriptive and analytical in nature, whereas interpretation is synthetic and hypothesis-driven. Interpretive conclusions must not be allowed to shape or modify translational decisions.

3. Restriction to Primary Data

During translation, the researcher operates exclusively on local data: syntax, historical semantics of lexical units, immediate pericope context, and manuscript variants. These data function analogously to secured evidence in forensic investigation and are subject to documentation rather than narrative reconstruction.

4. Deferral of Contextual Expansion

Canonical context, parallel traditions, theological development, and reception history are intentionally suspended until the interpretive phase. Their use is permissible only after the base text has been established and analyzed, and they must not interfere with the linguistic layer of the translation.

5. Prohibition of Corrective Harmonization

Harmonization must not function as a corrective mechanism. It may not be employed to eliminate tensions, standardize terminology, or align a text with a coherent theological narrative. Harmonization serves an explanatory role, not a normative one.

6. Preservation of Tensions and Divergences

Discrepancies between texts, variants, or traditions are not treated as defects but as analytically significant data. Such tensions may reveal redactional processes, differing communal contexts, or conceptual development and therefore must remain visible rather than resolved prematurely.

7. Transparency and Auditability of Decisions

Every translational and interpretive decision should be traceable to explicit data and clearly stated criteria. The transition from data analysis to interpretation must be staged, transparent, and open to review, revision, or rejection.