2024 CCEA AS-Level Religious Studies 4610 Practice Paper with Answers

A covenant, in the Old Testament, is a binding relationship or agreement established between God and his people, and the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants together provide the foundational theological framework for Israel's self-understanding as God's chosen people.

The Abrahamic covenant is established across Genesis 12:1-9 and Genesis 17:1-27. In Genesis 12, God calls Abram out of Haran with a promise of land, of descendants forming a great nation, and that through Abram all the families of the earth will be blessed. Genesis 17 renews and formalises this covenant, renaming Abram as Abraham ('father of many nations') and instituting circumcision as the covenant's physical sign for every male descendant. A key theological feature of the Abrahamic covenant is that it is essentially unconditional and unilateral: God binds himself to fulfil the promise of land and descendants because of his own gracious choice (God's election), not because Abraham has earned or could forfeit it through obedience, though Abraham's faith (as in Genesis 15) is presented as the appropriate human response to it.

The Mosaic covenant, established at Sinai in Exodus 19:1-15 and Exodus 20:1-17, operates on a significantly different theological basis. Here God enters into covenant with the whole community of Israel, newly delivered from slavery in Egypt, and the covenant is explicitly conditional: Israel is called to 'keep my covenant' in order to become 'a kingdom of priests and a holy nation', and the content of the obligation is set out in detail in the Decalogue (Ten Commandments) and the wider Torah legislation that follows. Unlike circumcision under the Abrahamic covenant, the Sabbath functions as a central sign of the Mosaic covenant, marking Israel's obedience to the pattern of divine rest established at creation.

Together, these two covenants serve a crucial theological purpose: they establish that Israel's identity as God's 'elect' or chosen people rests both on God's free, gracious initiative (Abrahamic) and on Israel's ongoing responsibility to live in obedience to God's law (Mosaic). This dual foundation becomes theologically essential later in the Old Testament, particularly for the pre-exilic prophets. When Israel fails to observe its covenant obligations, prophets such as Isaiah invoke the language of covenant breach directly, using literary devices such as the rib, or covenant lawsuit (as in Isaiah 1:2-31, drawing on the covenant curses of Deuteronomy 32), to accuse the nation formally of breaking its Sinai obligations even while God's underlying Abrahamic promise of an enduring people and land remains, in the prophetic understanding, ultimately unbroken. The interplay of unconditional promise and conditional obligation set up by these two covenants therefore shapes the theological logic of much of the rest of the Old Testament narrative and prophetic literature.

Band-of-response marking (25 marks). Band 1 (1-4): Basic, fragmentary knowledge of covenant; weak written communication. Band 2 (5-8): Limited knowledge, perhaps naming Abraham and/or Moses without accurate detail of the covenants' content or purpose; adequate written communication. Band 3 (9-12): Reasonable, generally accurate account of both covenants with some reference to their signs (circumcision, Sabbath) and conditional/unconditional character, though development may be uneven; adequate specialist vocabulary. Band 4 (13-16): Good, accurate knowledge of both covenants with clear explanation of their theological purpose in establishing Israel's election and obligations, with some reference to specific texts (Genesis 12, 17; Exodus 19-20); clear organisation. Band 5 (17-20 base range; extended to 25 for exceptional responses): Comprehensive, precise and well-organised knowledge of both covenants, using accurate technical vocabulary (election, unconditional/conditional covenant) and demonstrating sophisticated understanding of how the covenants function together theologically, including their later prophetic significance. Max 25 marks.

The claim that the biblical David narratives are 'royal propaganda' rests on real and substantial evidence, but it does not fully account for features of the text that sit uneasily with a purely propagandistic purpose.

The case for reading the narratives as propaganda is considerable. The Davidic covenant of 2 Samuel 5:17-8:1, in which Nathan promises David an eternal dynasty, functions to provide unconditional divine legitimation for David's line specifically, a claim of obvious political value to any of David's royal descendants who might invoke it to secure their own throne. The Deuteronomistic Historian consistently uses David as the benchmark against which later kings of Judah are judged (as in 1 Kings 15:1-5, which measures Abijam favourably chiefly by comparison to David's faithfulness), suggesting David's idealised image serves an ongoing ideological function within the wider Deuteronomistic History, well beyond David's own lifetime. Deuteronomy 17:14-20's constraints on kingship (limiting a king's wives, horses and silver, and requiring him to keep a copy of the law) likewise reflect later theological ideals about righteous kingship that may have been projected back onto the presentation of David's reign. Scholars in the 'minimalist' camp have gone further, questioning whether the united monarchy under David was ever as extensive or centralised as the narratives suggest, given the absence, for much of the twentieth century, of any confirmed extra-biblical reference to David at all.

However, several features of the narratives complicate a purely propagandistic reading. Most significantly, the account of David's affair with Bathsheba and his engineered killing of her husband Uriah (2 Samuel 11:1-13:38) is deeply unflattering, presenting David as guilty of adultery, deception and effectively murder, with lasting negative consequences for his family; a text composed purely as royal propaganda would have an obvious motive to omit or soften such damaging material, yet it is preserved in detail and treated as morally serious within the narrative itself. Additionally, in 1993 the discovery of the Tel Dan Stele, a ninth-century BCE Aramaic inscription referring to the 'House of David' (bytdwd), provided the first confirmed extra-biblical evidence for a historical Davidic dynasty, directly challenging the more extreme minimalist position that David was a purely literary invention with no basis in genuine historical memory. The debate between 'minimalist' and 'maximalist' readings of the Davidic narratives (as reflected in passages such as 1 Samuel 8, 12 and 15:34-16:23) is itself best understood, on the current state of evidence, as a genuine scholarly disagreement about the degree of later theological shaping applied to authentic historical memory, rather than a settled case for pure invention.

On balance, the David narratives clearly contain substantial ideological and theological shaping in service of legitimising the Davidic dynasty and providing a paradigm of righteous kingship for the Deuteronomistic History — the claim is right to identify this dimension. However, the presence of genuinely damaging material about David, together with external corroboration such as the Tel Dan Stele, indicates that the narratives are better understood as a theologically shaped memory of a real historical figure and dynasty than as propaganda invented wholesale, so the claim should only be partly, rather than wholly, accepted.

Band-of-response marking (25 marks). Band 1 (1-4): Basic, largely descriptive response with little genuine evaluation; weak written communication. Band 2 (5-8): Limited critical analysis, perhaps outlining the David narratives without meaningful assessment of the claim; adequate written communication. Band 3 (9-12): Reasonable evaluation with some balanced discussion of evidence for and against the propaganda reading (e.g. the Davidic covenant versus the Bathsheba episode), reaching a basic conclusion; adequate specialist vocabulary. Band 4 (13-16): Good, well-developed critical evaluation engaging directly with the claim, using relevant scholarly reference points (minimalist/maximalist debate, the Tel Dan Stele) and reaching a justified conclusion; clear organisation. Band 5 (17-20 base range; extended to 25 for exceptional responses): Sophisticated, sustained critical evaluation that directly and repeatedly engages the claim, weighs strong evidence and counter-evidence with precision, and reaches a well-substantiated, independently argued conclusion; excellent use of specialist vocabulary throughout. Max 25 marks.

The Five Pillars of Islam are the core acts of worship and belief that structure Muslim religious practice, rooted in the teaching of the Qur'an and the practical example (Sunnah) established by Muhammad during his life in Mecca and Medina.

The first pillar, Shahada, is the declaration of faith: 'There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is His messenger.' Sincere recitation of the Shahada, with understanding and intention, is regarded as the foundational act by which a person formally becomes a Muslim, and it is recited regularly within daily prayer.

The second pillar, Salat, is the performance of ritual prayer five times daily, at prescribed times from dawn to night, facing the direction of Mecca (the qibla). Salat is preceded by wudu, a ritual washing of the hands, face, arms and feet, symbolising spiritual as well as physical purification, and follows a fixed sequence of physical postures (standing, bowing, prostration) accompanied by set recitations, including verses from the Qur'an's opening chapter, al-Fatiha.

The third pillar, Zakat, is obligatory almsgiving, generally calculated as a proportion (traditionally 2.5%) of a Muslim's savings and qualifying wealth, given annually to support the poor and other specified categories of recipients named in the Qur'an. Zakat is understood not as charity in a purely voluntary sense but as a religious duty that purifies the remainder of a person's wealth and expresses gratitude to God.

The fourth pillar, Sawm, is fasting during the month of Ramadan, the month in which Muslims believe the Qur'an's revelation to Muhammad began. From dawn until sunset each day throughout the month, observant Muslims abstain from food, drink and other specified activities, breaking the fast each evening; the month concludes with the festival of Eid-ul-Fitr, a celebration marked by communal prayer, feasting and charitable giving.

The fifth pillar, Hajj, is pilgrimage to Mecca, obligatory at least once in a lifetime for every Muslim who is physically and financially able to undertake it. Hajj takes place during a specified period in the Islamic calendar and involves a sequence of ritual acts at and around the Kaaba, Mina, Mount Arafat and Muzdalifah, many of which commemorate the actions of Ibrahim (Abraham), Hajar and Ismail. The pilgrimage period includes the festival of Eid-ul-Adha, commemorating Ibrahim's willingness to sacrifice his son in obedience to God, marked by the sacrifice of an animal and the sharing of its meat, including with the poor.

Together, the Five Pillars provide Muslims with a structured framework of daily, annual and once-in-a-lifetime religious practice, uniting individual devotion (Shahada, Salat) with social and communal responsibility (Zakat, the shared experience of Ramadan and Hajj), and are understood by Muslims as concrete expressions of submission (the literal meaning of 'Islam') to the will of God.

Band-of-response marking (25 marks). Band 1 (1-4): Basic, fragmentary knowledge of the Five Pillars; weak written communication. Band 2 (5-8): Limited knowledge, perhaps naming some pillars without accurate detail of practice or origin; adequate written communication. Band 3 (9-12): Reasonable, generally accurate account of most or all pillars, with some reference to how they are practised, though development may be uneven; adequate specialist vocabulary. Band 4 (13-16): Good, accurate knowledge of all five pillars, their Qur'anic and prophetic origins, and how each is practised, with some reference to associated festivals; clear organisation. Band 5 (17-20 base range; extended to 25 for exceptional responses): Comprehensive, precise and well-organised knowledge of all five pillars, using accurate technical vocabulary (Shahada, Salat, Zakat, Sawm, Hajj, qibla, wudu) and demonstrating sophisticated understanding of their theological significance and interconnection. Max 25 marks.

Muhammad's life combined prophetic, preaching, military and statesmanlike leadership in a single figure, and assessing how far this model remains relevant today, including for believers of other faiths, requires drawing on wider human experience of religion, politics and leadership beyond Islam itself.

The case for continuing relevance is considerable. Muhammad's leadership in Medina after the Hijra combined community-building with practical governance: the Constitution of Medina established a pluralistic agreement among Muslims, Jews and other groups within the city, offering an early historical example of a religiously plural community bound by shared civic obligations rather than uniform belief, a model some contemporary scholars of religion and politics point to when discussing how religious leadership can accommodate diversity rather than simply imposing uniformity. Muhammad's role as 'example to others' (uswa hasana), recorded in the Sunnah and Hadith, integrates ethical guidance with practical decision-making in a way many religious traditions value: comparable figures, such as Moses in the Hebrew Bible, similarly combine the roles of lawgiver, community leader and, at times, military commander, suggesting that Muhammad's integration of religious and political leadership is not unique to Islam but reflects a recurring pattern in how religious traditions have historically produced founding leaders who shape both belief and communal life together. For believers navigating the relationship between faith and public life today, Muhammad's example is often cited as evidence that religious commitment need not be confined to private devotion but can legitimately inform public and political responsibility.

However, the claim's universal framing faces significant challenges when considered against wider human experience. Many of Muhammad's specific political and military decisions were responses to the particular tribal, economic and military conditions of seventh-century Arabia — conflicts with the Meccans, alliance-building among Arabian tribes — and applying these specific decisions directly to radically different modern contexts raises real interpretive difficulties, a concern shared by many contemporary Muslim scholars debating how classical precedent should inform modern governance. Modern secular political philosophy, reflected in the constitutional arrangements of most contemporary states, generally argues for a separation of religious and political authority, viewing the fusion of the two as a potential threat to pluralism and individual rights rather than a positive model — a view many citizens of religiously diverse, secular democracies would hold regardless of their own personal faith. For believers of other faiths specifically, whose own traditions may draw a much sharper line between religious and political leadership (as in mainstream contemporary Christianity's general acceptance of church-state separation), Muhammad's specific model of combined prophetic-political leadership may be admired as historically significant without being experienced as personally 'relevant' or normative for how they understand leadership within their own tradition today.

On balance, Muhammad's integration of ethical, communal and political leadership, exemplified by the pluralistic Constitution of Medina, offers a genuinely significant and still-discussed model of religiously grounded leadership with real echoes in other traditions' founding figures. However, given the very different political conditions of the modern world and the divergent views within and beyond Islam on whether religious and political authority should be combined at all, the claim that this model remains straightforwardly 'relevant to religious believers of all faiths today' overstates a genuinely contested and context-dependent legacy, and should therefore only be partly accepted.

Band-of-response marking (25 marks). Band 1 (0-5): Basic/minimal response; no meaningful reference to other aspects of human experience. Band 2 (6-10): Limited knowledge and critical analysis; other aspects of human experience, if present, are undeveloped — this is the mandatory ceiling if other aspects of human experience are genuinely absent. Band 3 (11-15): Good/reasonable response with some engagement with other aspects of human experience (e.g. comparison with other religious leaders, secular political thought), reaching a basic justified conclusion. Band 4 (16-20): Very good understanding and evaluation, mature structure, clear and sustained engagement with other aspects of human experience (e.g. Moses as a comparative figure, church-state separation in modern democracies), clear justification of the conclusion. Band 5 (21-25): Comprehensive/excellent critical analysis, sophisticated structure, extensive and well-integrated engagement with other aspects of human experience, substantiated and independently argued conclusion, extensive technical vocabulary. Max 25 marks.