|
Form Criticism: Dissecting the text to uncover its past history |
|||||||||
| Form Criticism examines the genre and the life of a text before it was written down. It is about the pre-history of a text. | |||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
|
Mark's Healing of the
Leper fits into the broad miracle category with 3 main elements (crisis,
intervention and resolution).
The act of healing also incorporates 3 distinct elements: a gesture (v.41), a command (v.41) and effect (v.42). What about v43 on? You might have noticed that all of this really on relates to the first half of the unit or pericope. In order to look at the second half, let's go on to look at the question of setting or its Sitz-im-Leben. |
![]() |
|
||||||
One of the main criticisms of this approach, is that
Form Criticism assumed that the church created most of the units. Few
scholars now hold this view.
|
Sitz-im-Leben (Life-Setting) Although the early church would have used the Jewish Scriptures, its main Christian teaching would have been transmitted orally. Following the life, teaching and death of Jesus, it is thought that a mass of material was accumulated and was circulated by word of mouth between the first Christians. The story of the leper's healing would have almost certainly been one. Form Criticism allows us to think more closely about this stage in its life. First of all it asks - Why was this story preserved? Sitz-im-Leben describes how the preservation of material is dependent upon its usefulness; it becomes a part of the church's tradition because it is important to the church.
What do you think the life-setting of the leper's healing was (how could it have been used)? What do you think is the main point of the story - the healing or the leper's response/disobedience? Look at Jesus' attitude to the Temple and the Law. Is this an important feature of this story - does it tell us anything about the type of Christianity within which this story circulated? Why do you think Mark decided to include it in his Gospel?
|
||||||||
| Back to Lab | |||||||||