Cambridge International AS & A Level: Biblical Studies 9484/42
Cambridge International AS & A Level: Biblical Studies 9484/42
Cambridge International AS & A Level: Biblical Studies 9484/42
Published
This mark scheme is published as an aid to teachers and candidates, to indicate the requirements of the
examination. It shows the basis on which Examiners were instructed to award marks. It does not indicate the
details of the discussions that took place at an Examiners’ meeting before marking began, which would have
considered the acceptability of alternative answers.
Mark schemes should be read in conjunction with the question paper and the Principal Examiner Report for
Teachers.
Cambridge International will not enter into discussions about these mark schemes.
Cambridge International is publishing the mark schemes for the May/June 2024 series for most
Cambridge IGCSE, Cambridge International A and AS Level and Cambridge Pre-U components, and some
Cambridge O Level components.
These general marking principles must be applied by all examiners when marking candidate answers. They should be applied alongside the
specific content of the mark scheme or generic level descriptions for a question. Each question paper and mark scheme will also comply with these
marking principles.
the specific content of the mark scheme or the generic level descriptors for the question
the specific skills defined in the mark scheme or in the generic level descriptors for the question
the standard of response required by a candidate as exemplified by the standardisation scripts.
Marks awarded are always whole marks (not half marks, or other fractions).
marks are awarded for correct/valid answers, as defined in the mark scheme. However, credit is given for valid answers which go beyond
the scope of the syllabus and mark scheme, referring to your Team Leader as appropriate
marks are awarded when candidates clearly demonstrate what they know and can do
marks are not deducted for errors
marks are not deducted for omissions
answers should only be judged on the quality of spelling, punctuation and grammar when these features are specifically assessed by the
question as indicated by the mark scheme. The meaning, however, should be unambiguous.
Rules must be applied consistently, e.g. in situations where candidates have not followed instructions or in the application of generic level
descriptors.
Marks should be awarded using the full range of marks defined in the mark scheme for the question (however; the use of the full mark range may
be limited according to the quality of the candidate responses seen).
Marks awarded are based solely on the requirements as defined in the mark scheme. Marks should not be awarded with grade thresholds or
grade descriptors in mind.
Marking of work should be positive, rewarding achievement where possible, but clearly differentiating across the whole range of marks, where
appropriate.
The marker should look at the work and then make a judgement about which level statement is the best fit. In practice, work does not always match
one level statement precisely so a judgement may need to be made between two or more level statements.
Once a best-fit level statement has been identified, use the following guidance to decide on a specific mark:
If the candidate’s work convincingly meets the level statement, award the highest mark.
If the candidate’s work adequately meets the level statement, award the most appropriate mark in the middle of the range (where middle
marks are available).
If the candidate’s work just meets the level statement, award the lowest mark.
Annotation:
For levels of response marking, the level awarded should be annotated on the script.
Ticks have no defined meaning for levels of response marking.
Other annotations will be used by examiners as agreed during standardisation, and the meaning will be understood by all examiners who
marked that paper.
Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of specified texts and Christian teachings, beliefs and practices as recorded in the Bible.
Analyse, evaluate and discuss evidence, points of view and issues in Christianity.
Use this table to give marks for each candidate response for Questions 1, 2 and 3.
Use this table to give marks for each candidate response for Questions 1, 2 and 3.
1 ‘Archaeological developments are the greatest challenge to a literal interpretation of Genesis.’ Discuss. 25
Use Table A: AO1 Knowledge and understanding (10 marks) and Table B: AO2 Analysis and evaluation (15 Marks) to mark
candidate responses to this question.
Indicative content
Candidates may propose, analyse and evaluate some of the following arguments. All relevant arguments must be credited.
Candidates may suggest that different specific archaeological developments present the greatest challenge to a literal
interpretation of Genesis or may instead discuss archaeological developments as a collective. Either is a reasonable
approach.
Some candidates are likely to suggest that whilst a literal reading of Genesis presents an internal chronology
suggesting that the humans have existed for less than 10,000 years, there are archaeological finds from pre-historic
civilisations that are significantly older than this. This would indicate that at least parts of Genesis should not be read
literally.
Some candidates may take a view, similar to that of T L Thompson, that biblical archaeology has shown that Genesis is
not only ahistorical, but extremely unlikely.
Candidates may suggest that biblical minimalism is now the predominant school of thought in biblical archaeology, and
as such archaeological developments have already successfully challenged literal interpretations, at least in most
scholarly circles.
Candidates are likely to present one or more of the other challenges to creation narratives as being a greater challenge
than archaeology, such as similarities with other ancient sources, scientific developments or internal incoherence.
1 Some candidates may suggest that the similarities between Genesis and the Enuma Elish presents a greater challenge
than archaeological developments to a literal reading of Genesis. They may suggest that the similarities between the
two texts indicate that Genesis is not entirely original, and therefore should not be read literally, as it is itself an
interpretation of an earlier work. Candidates may make similar points with regard to the Epic of Gilgamesh or other
ancient texts.
Other candidates may suggest that scientific developments pose a greater challenge to a literal reading of Genesis.
They may suggest that developments in scientific understanding, such as the Big Bang theory, present a better
explanation for the origins of the universe than a literal interpretation of Genesis, and that therefore Genesis should be
interpreted metaphorically.
Some may suggest that the differences between the Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 accounts show an internal incoherence
to Genesis, and this is the greatest challenge that a literal reading of Genesis faces.
Some may suggest that biblical maximalism, whilst a minority view, still has a significant number of active scholarly
supporters.
Some candidates may suggest that rather than being a challenge to a literal interpretation of Genesis, archaeological
developments instead support such a view. Candidates may use discoveries such as those of the Hittite civilisation
being argued to promote the authenticity of Genesis as a whole.
Some candidates may suggest that there are no substantial challenges to a literal interpretation of Genesis; such a
view should be argued, not merely asserted.
2 Analyse to what extent there is a conflict between biblical teachings on stewardship and dominion. 25
Use Table A: AO1 Knowledge and understanding (10 marks) and Table B: AO2 Analysis and evaluation (15 Marks) to mark
candidate responses to this question.
Indicative content
Candidates may propose, analyse and evaluate some of the following arguments. All relevant arguments must be credited.
There is a conflict
Candidates may suggest that many of the teachings on stewardship and dominion do not merely conflict, but can
appear to be in direct opposition to one another. For example, the difference between the Earth and everything in it
being declared to be the Lord’s in Psalm 24, whereas in Psalm 8 it states that all things have been put under the feet of
humans.
Some may suggest that by their nature, the very concepts of stewardship and dominion are in conflict with one another,
that caring for and controlling something are in essence too different to not be in conflict.
Some candidates may suggest that stewardship requires people to steward or shepherd resources and animals, and
utilise them responsibly, to ensure that there is something to hand over to the next generation of stewards. Dominion
has no such implication.
Some may discuss how the approach Christians take in understanding the conflict between stewardship and dominion
tends to be linked to their views on creation, with those favouring a literalist approach tending towards dominion being
predominate, whereas those who view creation more metaphorically tending towards pre-eminence for the role of
stewardship amongst believers. Candidates may discuss why these links exist, and the role played by beliefs in
creation in interpreting other teachings.
Some may suggest that whilst there is a conflict between teachings on stewardship and dominion, it is not one of
sufficient extent to be a significant concern to Christians, and their focus should be on other issues or concerns, such
as salvation or charity for example.
2 There is no conflict
Candidates may instead suggest that there exists little or no conflict between biblical teachings on stewardship and
dominion, and that rather than overlapping they are intrinsically separate.
Some may suggest that teachings on dominion instruct Christians that they have authority over animals and the earth,
and that teachings on stewardship give guidance on how to utilise that authority; that God should be seen as a model
of dominion being used benignly and combined with stewardship and care for his creation, and that Christians should
strive to reflect that in their own actions.
Some may suggest that there is no conflict, and that stewardship is a far more significant concept to Christians than
dominion. The alternative view may also be suggested.
Some may suggest that whilst the views may have previously been in conflict, as understandings and ethical teachings
have developed over time, they are now best seen in concert rather than in conflict.
3 ‘The New Testament presents a clear understanding of how salvation is achieved.’ Discuss. 25
Use Table A: AO1 Knowledge and understanding (10 marks) and Table B: AO2 Analysis and evaluation (15 Marks) to mark
candidate responses to this question.
Indicative content
Candidates may propose, analyse and evaluate some of the following arguments. All relevant arguments must be credited.
Candidates may focus their response on the New Testament as a whole or may instead put forward specific teachings
that they argue present a clear understanding of salvation; both approaches are reasonable.
Some candidates may argue that the New Testament presents a clear view that salvation is achieved by grace and
may use teachings such as Ephesians 2:1–7 as the basis for such an argument.
Other candidates may argue that the New Testament presents a clear view that salvation is achieved by faith and may
use teachings such as James 2:14–26 as the basis for such an argument.
Some candidates may use Ephesians 2:8 to argue that salvation is achieved through grace and faith.
Some candidates may argue that the sacrifice of Jesus itself presents a clear understanding of salvation.
Some candidates may argue that the New Testament presents a clear understanding that salvation is achieved
through and/or by Jesus, but that disputes exist amongst Christians about how this salvation is obtained, accessed or
achieved.
Some may argue that whilst individual books of the New Testament may present a clear understanding of how
salvation is obtained, but that taken as a collective the New Testament does not present a clear understanding. This is
because the different books can be argued to present different ideas and arguments around salvation, which may not
be mutually intelligible. Some may discuss the nature of the Bible as a book of books in developing such a line of
argument.
3 Some may suggest that through the nature of the arguments presented to the early church in the New Testament, it
was not clear to the early church how salvation was obtained, as they clearly repeatedly held ideas that the epistolary
writers felt they had to correct.
Some may argue that in its first-century context, the New Testament may have presented a clear understanding of how
salvation is achieved, but that over time as the context has changed, the teachings expressed have become less clear
and more open to interpretation.
Some may argue that the different means of attaining salvation described in different writings indicate that there cannot
be one clear understanding, and that a composite or partial understanding is the best one can hope to achieve.