Literary and cultural context

Take I Kings 16:29 to 34, one of the shortest blocks on the list, and show how to record it so that it can be used in an examination rather than merely remembered.

1. 01What the block contains

   The regnal notice for Ahab son of Omri, with the narrator's evaluation that he did evil more than all who were before him; his marriage to Jezebel daughter of Ethbaal king of the Sidonians; his service of Baal, the altar and house he built for Baal in Samaria, and the sacred pole he made; and a closing note about Hiel of Bethel rebuilding Jericho. Six verses, and every element of them is load-bearing for set text 2.

2. 02What in the set text it accounts for

   Three things at least. It explains why there is a temple of Baal in Samaria for Jehu to destroy in II Kings 10. It explains who Jezebel is, where she comes from and why she is a religious as well as a political figure, which is what makes her death in II Kings 9 a scene about the cult and not only about the dynasty. And it establishes the house of Ahab as a house under judgement in the narrative's own terms, which is the frame within which the whole of set text 2 presents Jehu's commission.

3. 03The claim each connection licenses

   That the narrative of II Kings 9 to 13 assumes a verdict already delivered rather than delivering one; that its treatment of the Baal cult is continuous with a story begun several chapters earlier and not a new theme; and that Jezebel is characterised before she acts, so that the reader of the set text meets a figure already defined. Each of these is a claim about the set text, supported by the reading, which is exactly the shape the Section C essay wants.

4. 04How to write it on the card

   Three lines and no more. Line one: I Kings 16:29 to 34 — Ahab, Jezebel of Sidon, Baal temple in Samaria. Line two: explains the Baal temple destroyed in II Kings 10, Jezebel's cultic significance in II Kings 9, and the standing verdict on the house of Ahab. Line three: licenses the claim that set text 2 assumes a judgement rather than argues one. Location, function, claim. Eleven cards of this kind are the whole of the context requirement.

5. 05The register to use

   Note the wording throughout: the narrator evaluates, the narrative presents, the account establishes. These are descriptions of what a text does, and they are accurate in a way that a bare assertion would not be. In a Section C essay this register is not a stylistic nicety but a source of marks, because the AO3 grid rewards conclusions supported by well-selected examples, and a claim about what a narrative does can be supported from the narrative, whereas a claim about what happened cannot be settled at all.

Result: Card: I Kings 16:29 to 34 gives Ahab, his marriage to Jezebel of Sidon, and the Baal temple in Samaria. It explains the temple Jehu destroys in II Kings 10, Jezebel's significance in II Kings 9, and the standing verdict on the house of Ahab. It licenses the claim that set text 2 assumes a judgement already delivered rather than delivering one. Location, function, claim, in three lines.

A Paper 2 Section B comprehension question on an extract from II Kings 9 asks: why are the king of Israel and the king of Judah both at Jezreel, and what is the relationship between them? Answer it, and say where the answer comes from.

1. 01Recognise that the extract cannot answer it

   Nothing in II Kings 9 explains why the two kings are in the same place. The chapter simply reports that Joram is at Jezreel and that Ahaziah is visiting him. A candidate who looks for the answer in the printed extract will not find it, and the question has been set precisely to test whether the prescribed reading has been done. Recognising the kind of question is half of answering it.

2. 02The answer, from II Kings 8:25 to 29

   Joram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah had gone together to fight Hazael king of Aram at Ramoth-gilead; Joram was wounded there and returned to Jezreel to recover; Ahaziah went down to Jezreel to visit him. That is the whole answer to the first half of the question and it takes two sentences. Note the further consequence, which the question may be pointing at: the same passage explains why Jehu is at Ramoth-gilead with the army when the prophet arrives to anoint him.

3. 03The relationship

   Ahaziah of Judah is connected to the house of Ahab through his mother Athaliah, who is described in the same passage as a descendant of Omri, so the two kings are kin as well as allies. That connection is what makes Ahaziah's death part of the same purge rather than an accident of proximity, and it is also what puts Athaliah in a position to seize the throne of Judah two chapters later when her son is dead.

4. 04How to write it

   Give the fact, then the reference, then the consequence, in that order and in note form if the mark allocation is small. They had campaigned together against Hazael at Ramoth-gilead, where Joram was wounded and withdrew to Jezreel, and Ahaziah came to visit him — II Kings 8:28 to 29. They are related through Ahaziah's mother Athaliah, of the house of Omri — II Kings 8:26. Citing the reference is worth doing even in a short answer, because it shows the examiner that the knowledge is located rather than vague.

5. 05The general lesson

   Questions of this kind are cheap marks for a candidate who has read the prescribed blocks and impossible for one who has not, and they cannot be bluffed, because the answer is a specific set of facts. Five verses of English reading, read once and carded, secure them permanently. This is the clearest illustration of why the specification calls the additional reading required rather than recommended.

Result: They are at Jezreel because they had campaigned together against Hazael at Ramoth-gilead, where Joram was wounded and withdrew to Jezreel and Ahaziah came down to see him, at II Kings 8:28 to 29; and they are kin, because Ahaziah's mother Athaliah belonged to the house of Omri, at II Kings 8:26. Neither fact is available from the printed extract, and both come from a prescribed block of five verses.

Psalms 56 and 52 rest on two prescribed blocks that are consecutive in the narrative: I Samuel 21:2 to 16 and I Samuel 22:7 to 19. Show what a candidate gains from noticing the connection, and how to use it.

1. 01The narrative link

   In the first block David comes to Ahimelech at Nob, receives bread and the sword of Goliath, and goes on to Gath. The narrative notes that Doeg the Edomite was there at Nob. In the second block Doeg reports what he saw to Saul, and the priests of Nob are killed for having helped David. The two episodes are cause and consequence, and the specification prescribes both, though it attaches the first to Psalm 56 and the second to Psalm 52 through their respective superscriptions.

2. 02What each psalm makes of its half

   Psalm 56 is a lament whose heading points to the Gath episode, and its subject is being hemmed in and watched by adversaries. Psalm 52 is a denunciation of a man who boasts of evil and whose tongue is his weapon, and its heading points to the informer. Read separately, the two psalms are simply a lament and a denunciation. Read against their prescribed narratives, they divide a single episode between them: one takes the position of the hunted man, the other addresses the man whose words did the damage.

3. 03The claim this licenses

   That the arrangement of the superscriptions is not simply a list of occasions but a distribution: two psalms of different genres are attached to two halves of one connected episode, so that the collection offers both a voice from inside the danger and a verdict on the man who created it. That is a claim about the design of the collection, it is supported by the two headings and the two narratives, and it can be tested against the other four pairings. It is exactly the kind of argument the Section C essay rewards.

4. 04How to deploy it in 500 words

   One paragraph. State the claim; give the evidence with all four references — Psalms 56 and 52, I Samuel 21:2 to 16 and 22:7 to 19; note that the narrative link between the two blocks is Doeg's presence at Nob; and state the consequence, that the pairing shows the headings functioning as an arrangement rather than as a set of independent notes. Do not retell either narrative. Two sentences of evidence are enough because the references locate everything the examiner needs.

5. 05The caveat to include

   Add one clause of attribution. Whether the headings record the occasions on which these poems were written, or were added later to direct how they should be read, is a question on which readers differ; the claim being made here concerns the effect of the arrangement as it has been transmitted, and it holds on either account. That clause takes ten words, protects the whole argument, and demonstrates the critical awareness the AO3 grid asks for.

Result: Psalm 56 is directed to the Gath episode of I Samuel 21:2 to 16 and Psalm 52 to the informing of Doeg in I Samuel 22:7 to 19, and the two narratives are linked, because Doeg is present at Nob in the first and reports in the second. The pairing shows the superscriptions distributing two genres across one episode — the voice of the hunted and the verdict on the informer — which is a claim about the arrangement of the collection and holds however the headings themselves are accounted for.

A question on set text 3 asks about the location named in the sign of the linen waistcloth at Jeremiah 13:1 to 11, and invites up to two explanations with justification. Construct the answer.

1. 01State the difficulty

   Open by naming what kind of question this is. The place named in the passage is spelled in Hebrew as פְּרָת, and that spelling is the ordinary biblical name of the Euphrates; but the narrative sends the prophet there and back twice, which is a very long journey, and readers have therefore asked whether a nearer place with a similar name is meant. The difficulty is thus not lexical but geographical and narrative, and saying so at the outset frames both readings that follow.

2. 02Reading one, and its justification

   The place is the Euphrates. Justification: that is what the word means everywhere else in the Hebrew Bible, and the spelling here is the same. Consequence for the reading of the sign: the enormous distance is part of the point, because a garment carried to the great river of the empire that will overwhelm Judah and rotted there makes the sign a statement about where the ruin comes from. On this reading the journey's improbability is not an objection but a feature.

3. 03Reading two, and its justification

   The place is a location near the prophet's own home in Benjamin whose name resembles the word used. Justification: the narrative requires two journeys, the second after many days, which would be an extraordinary undertaking to the Euphrates and is unremarkable if the site is a few miles from Anathoth; and the sign works equally well as a sign wherever the cloth is hidden, since what matters is the ruin of the garment. Consequence: on this reading the passage is a local sign-act like the others in the book, and the resemblance of the names is a deliberate resonance rather than an identification.

4. 04State a preference, or decline to

   If the question invites a preference, give one and give the reason: the plain sense of the word is the stronger evidence, and the difficulty of the journey is an argument from probability rather than from the text. If the question does not invite one, say that both readings are current and that the choice affects the scale of the sign rather than its meaning. Either is a full answer; what would not be a full answer is asserting one reading without acknowledging the other, since the question explicitly offered two.

5. 05The register

   Attribute throughout. The word is normally used of; readers have asked whether; on this reading the sign becomes. That register is accurate, because the question genuinely is open, and it is also the register the specification's own wording invites when it asks for explanations supported by contextual and grammatical justification rather than for a decision. An examiner marking AO2 rewards the accuracy of the knowledge deployed, and the accurate statement here is that the identification is disputed.

Result: Name the difficulty first: the Hebrew word is the ordinary name of the Euphrates, but the narrative requires two journeys there and back. Reading one takes it as the Euphrates, justified by usage, making the distance part of the sign's meaning. Reading two takes it as a nearby place of similar name, justified by the narrative's demand for two journeys, making it a local sign-act. Give a preference with a reason if invited, and attribute throughout.

In an examination you meet a reference to the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat in an extract from set text 2, and a reference to the house of David in an extract from set text 4. Place both in the sequence and say what each contributes, without dating anything.

1. 01The first reference

   Jeroboam son of Nebat belongs to the prescribed reading, at I Kings 11:28 to 40 and 12:19 to 33: he is the first king of the northern kingdom in the narrative's account and the maker of the golden calves at Bethel and Dan. In the sequence he stands before the whole of set text 2. What the reference contributes in an extract from II Kings is a standing evaluation: to say that a king did not turn from the sins of Jeroboam is to place him within a judgement that the narrative has been applying since the kingdom divided.

2. 02How to state it safely

   Write: the reference is to the account in I Kings 12:19 to 33 of the calves set up at Bethel and Dan, which the narrative of Kings uses thereafter as its standing charge against the northern kings. Nothing in that sentence is a date, an authorship claim or a historical judgement, and every part of it can be supported from the prescribed reading. It is a statement about how one text uses another.

3. 03The second reference

   The house of David in a psalm of set text 4 is not a narrative reference in the same sense, because a psalm is not narrating. What it does is connect the poem to the Davidic material to which the collection has been attached, both by the attribution in the superscriptions and, in six psalms, by a historical note pointing at a specific episode. In the sequence, that material stands between set text 1 and the I Kings reading.

4. 04The difference between the two references

   Naming it is worth a mark. The reference in Kings is intertextual within a continuous narrative: one part of a story invoking an earlier part. The reference in a psalm is a matter of collection and attribution: a poem placed within a body of material associated with a figure. Treating both as the same kind of reference is a common flattening, and distinguishing them shows the kind of critical awareness the AO3 grid rewards.

5. 05What not to add

   Do not add a century, a regnal date or a claim about when either text was written. None of it is examined, none of it can be defended in an examination answer, and all of it is contested. If a question genuinely seems to require a historical framing, supply it as the narrative's own framing — the account presents these events as following those — which is accurate, sufficient and safe.

Result: Jeroboam belongs to the prescribed reading at I Kings 11 and 12 and stands before the whole of set text 2, and a reference to his sins invokes the narrative's standing charge against the northern kings. A reference to the house of David in a psalm works differently: it connects the poem to the material the collection is attributed to, and in six psalms to a specific prescribed narrative. Distinguish the two kinds of reference, and attach no dates to either.

A Section C essay question on set text 2 invites you to consider how the narrative presents Jehu's purge. You know that readers have taken very different views of it. Write the passage of your essay that handles this, in an attributive register, and say why each choice is made.

1. 01Separate the three questions

   Three different things are in play and conflating them is what produces a weak paragraph. What the narrative says: a matter of reading the text, and settleable. How the narrative frames what it says: a matter of literary analysis, and arguable from evidence. Whether what is described was right, or happened: matters of moral and historical judgement, not settleable in an examination and not asked for. Decide before writing which of the three your sentence is about, and say so.

2. 02Sentence one: what the narrative does

   Write: the account presents the purge as the execution of a judgement already pronounced, framing it by the commission at Ramoth-gilead at the opening of chapter 9 and by the recollection of the oracle at the plot of Naboth at 9:25 to 26. Every verb in that sentence is a verb of presentation, and every claim is supported by a located reference. It is a claim about the text and it can be defended from the text.

3. 03Sentence two: the qualification the narrative itself supplies

   Write: the same account withholds unqualified approval, since chapter 10 records that Jehu did not turn from the golden calves at Bethel and Dan, applying to him the standing charge the prescribed reading at I Kings 12:19 to 33 supplies. This is the move that turns description into argument, and it does so entirely from within the material, which is why it is safe as well as strong.

4. 04Sentence three: naming the readings without choosing

   Write: the passage has been read very differently — as a vindication of prophecy, and as a narrative that records a bloody episode while declining to endorse its agent — and both readings appeal to features of the text, the first to the fulfilment structure and the second to the qualification in chapter 10. Naming two readings and saying what evidence each appeals to is analysis; picking one and denouncing the other is not, and would in any case require space the essay does not have.

5. 05Why this scores

   The AO3 grid rewards a range of points, well developed, based on well-selected examples, leading to conclusions. Three sentences of this kind make two points, support both from located evidence, and reach a conclusion about the narrative's own stance rather than about the events. They also treat a text that many readers hold sacred with the seriousness a scholarly discussion would, which is simply the correct way to write about it and happens also to be the way that earns the marks.

Result: Sentence one states what the narrative does, with two located references. Sentence two states the qualification the narrative supplies about its own agent, drawing on the prescribed reading. Sentence three names two established readings and the textual features each appeals to, without choosing. Three sentences, two supported points, one conclusion about the text's stance, and no claim the candidate cannot defend.