It can be jarring to be exposed to unfamiliar aspects of the 'human' character of the scriptures we've examined, their voices and particular concerns and backgrounds, especially if you've taken it as God's Word without thinking so much about its relationships of origin. On the other hand, it can be jarring to be exposed to the way Jesus and his apostles regarded these writings utterly seriously as holy scripture, God's Word to them and to all, especially if you've learned to take them more casually, or merely as the products of human intentions.
By contrast, the first generations of church leaders were not unsettled by either the Bible's humanity or its divine authority; they seem comfortably fluent in both. This has been true of many Christians from then until now, though the Enlightenment has tempted us to pull the two apart. In this exercise I want you to process these two aspects of holy scripture and the way Christians held them together. You can do this assignment with full integrity whether or not you are a Christian.
First, describe your 'doctrine of scripture' and (briefly) how it developed. You might want to interview people who were influential along the way, asking them how they view the human qualities and the divine character of biblical writings. You should also take a look at Westmont's Statement of Faith regarding the Bible. Here is the relevant portion:
God the Holy Spirit convicts us of sin, brings us to faith in Jesus Christ, and conforms us to the image of Christ. The Spirit inspired the authors of Scripture and guides the church in faithful translation and interpretation. The Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, is God-breathed and true, without error in all that it teaches; it is the supreme authority and only infallible guide for Christian faith and conduct-teaching, rebuking, and training us in righteousness.
Then choose a passage from one of the books we've examined so far, no longer than a chapter. How does its character (genre, claims, assumptions, implications, etc.) challenge and/or confirm your perspective, or the perspectives on scripture of others you know well? Finally, how do you think the historical canonization process, as described in lecture and/or sources elsewhere, honors (or falls short of honoring) the character of your passage and biblical book?
Follow the directions in my handout for writing papers. I always want to see proper style, clear writing, a thorough answer to the question, and explicit citations of course materials. Of course, cite any sources you draw on, whether directly or indirectly, or you're plagiarizing.