Bible 10 – Exegetical Paper Rubric
Support
Mechanics
Structure
Format
5
Perfect use of MLA
format. Correct
placement of heading,
header, and title. Paper is
typed in 12 point Times
New Roman, doublespaced, with 1 inch
margins.
The paper is structured
perfectly: there are
introductory, body, and
conclusion paragraphs;
the introductory
paragraph contains a
strong thesis; the body
paragraphs contain topic
sentences and ample
support; and a conclusion
wraps up the paper.
Strong transitions
between thoughts are
used.
The paper is written
perfectly. Academic
English is used
throughout; there are no
spelling errors, few (if
any) grammar errors, and
the paper is easy to
understand. Student
demonstrates a mature
use of sentence structure.
Paper contains effective
and strong support that
demonstrates an
extensive understanding
of the material. The
development of the
support is substantial,
specific, relevant, and
concrete.
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1
0
Use of MLA is almost
perfect. There may be one
or two minor flaws in
formatting.
Use of MLA is strong,
but flawed. There are
more than one or two
minor errors and/or a
severe error (e.g. heading
on wrong side, incorrect
font or font size)
Weak use of MLA.
Several errors and/or
omissions.
Little to no evidence that
the conventions of MLA
were followed.
Paper is not typed.
The structure of the paper
is very good. There may
be one or two minor
flaws throughout the
organization and
composition of the paper;
however, there are a
thesis, topic sentences,
support, and a concluding
sentence. Paragraphs are
arranged in a logical
manner, and transitions
are present.
The paper’s structure
begins to undermine the
reader’s ease and
understanding. There may
be many minor flaws or
one serious flaw;
however, a thesis and
some support are present.
Transitions are present.
The paper’s structure is
weak. There is a lack of
organization, and the
paper is partially missing
several of the following:
thesis, topic sentences,
support, or concluding
sentences. Transitions are
poorly selected or sparse.
The paper’s structure is
weak. There is a lack of
organization, and the
paper is completely
missing several of the
following: thesis, topic
sentences, support, or
concluding sentences.
Transitions are poorly
selected or sparse.
No evidence of structure
and organization is
present.
The paper is written
extremely well.
Academic English is
used; there are few
spelling errors, few
grammar errors, and the
paper is easy to
understand. Sentence
structure is strong and
free from major sentence
errors.
Paper contains strong
support that demonstrates
a thorough understanding
of the material. The
support is developed
through ample use of
specific details and
examples.
Errors in spelling,
mechanics, or the use of
academic English have
begun to detract from the
ability to easily read and
understand the paper. The
paper is written well
overall with appropriate
sentence structure mostly
free from major sentence
errors.
Paper contains support
that demonstrates an
understanding of much of
the material. The support
is consistently
developed, but it may
lack specificity.
Erratic spelling, grammar,
and a poor use of
academic English have
made the paper difficult
to comprehend. Sentence
structure is weak and
contains several major
sentence errors.
The conventions of
written academic English
have been mostly
ignored. The paper is
almost impossible to
understand as a result.
N/A
Paper contains little
support and demonstrates
only a basic
understanding of the
material. The support
may not always stay on
topic and/or is considered
weak or superficial,
consisting of
generalizations.
Paper contains an attempt
to include support,
although the support does
not stay on topic, nor
does it validate the
material.
Paper contains no support
and demonstrates a lack
of understanding of the
material.
Bible 10 – Exegetical Paper Rubric
Application
Interpretation
Exegesis
Outline
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1
0
Perfectly breaks the
entire text down to
individual clauses,
with correct labels.
Concise and accurate
descriptions. Outline
formatting consistent
and correct.
Breaks the entire text
down to individual
clauses, with mostly
correct labels and
accurate descriptions.
Outline formatting
consistent and correct.
Breaks nearly the entire
text down to individual
clauses, with many
correct labels and
descriptions. Outline
formatting is
understandable.
Clauses in the text are
missing, and labels are
not present. There are
very few accurate
descriptions. Outline
formatting is difficult to
understand.
Many clauses in the text
are missing, and labels
are not present.
Descriptions are
inaccurate and outline
formatting is
unintelligible.
Outline is missing.
Historical and textual
background are
thoroughly investigated
and explained.
Extraction recaps the
entire passage and
perfectly applies the
information gained in the
background sections.
Perfectly synthesizes the
information gleaned from
the exegesis and outline
of the text to perceptively
discover what the text
meant to the original
audience. Interpretation
stays focused on the
original audience.
Paper meaningfully
contemporizes and
applies the text to the
author’s life. There is a
clear connection between
the knowledge gained in
the research and the
application.
Historical and textual
background are well
investigated and
explained. Extraction
recaps the entire passage
and applies the
information gained in the
background sections.
Historical and textual
background are present
but lack depth in
investigation and
explanation. Extraction
recaps most of the
passage and refers to the
information in the
background sections.
Uses information gleaned
from the exegesis and
outline of the text to
discover what the text
meant to the original
audience. Interpretation
sometimes strays into
opinion or premature
application.
Paper contemporizes and
applies the text to the
author’s life. The
application, however, is
disjointed and/or
disconnected from the
rest of the sections of the
paper.
Either historical or textual
background are missing
and there is a lack of
depth in investigation and
explanation. Extraction
recaps some of the
passage and ignores the
information in the
background sections.
Hardly uses information
gleaned from the exegesis
and outline of the text and
mostly fails to address
what the text meant to the
original audience.
Interpretation is
unfocused and is mostly
opinion or application.
Paper lacks
contemporization or any
real application of the text
to the author’s life. The
application is completely
isolated from the rest of
the paper and seems
irrelevant to the text.
Either historical or textual
background are missing
and information is
superficial. Extraction
fails to recap the passage
and ignores the
information in the
background sections.
Exegesis components
missing.
Does not use any
information gleaned from
the exegesis or outline of
the text and completely
fails to address what the
text meant to the original
audience.
Interpretation
components missing.
Paper lacks
contemporization and real
application of the text to
the author’s life. The
application is completely
irrelevant to the text.
Application components
missing.
Synthesizes the
information gleaned from
the exegesis and outline
of the text to discover
what the text meant to the
original audience.
Interpretation stays
focused on the original
audience.
Paper contemporizes and
applies the text to the
author’s life well. There
is a connection between
the knowledge gained in
the research and the
application.
+___________
40