To whom I would want this to concern -
Doctor Marc Millan desires an analysis of "tetelestai" referring to its use in JOHN 19:30, "It has been finished (tetelestai)" in which he disputes the traditional theological interpretation that puts it into a theological teleology "in itself without any further implications . . . due to their belief the soul of Christ could not suffer in hell." Considering all that Kant says in the CRITIQUE OF JUDGMENT about the powerful motivation inherent in the human mind of "teleology" (I would say "language" in the sense of "understanding" both in the sense of Kant's "reason" as included in the tripartite fundamental grounding imagination as urgrund to "understanding" and intuition, and Heidegger's "understanding" as inheritance of traditional understanding as language and its preformed logical scheme.) that always, automatically and naturally, seeks to explain nature according to a plan or "divine providence" but completely without sound logical and scientific grounds, I would say Millan's inquiry is extremely interesting as he states it. He wants a deeper analysis of the term than is presented in Liddell & Scott and fully knows all about the Perseus website.

One avenue of exploration I might add is "What is the real nature of the story per se that John tells?" The first key presupposition of this would be that each book of the BIBLE which in Greek is TA BIBLIA, "the books," not at all in itself indicating any real unity of "the books," certainly never intended as a systematic theological expression of any one viewpoint. Considering all the discoveries included under the umbrella of "Dead Sea scrolls" and other archeological finds, I would suggest it is exactly and just that - a library. A real library has books on many different subjects from radically different viewpoints. If objectively read, I think both the Old and the New Testament reveal radically different viewpoints that even go beyond theology, both in fundamental intent and in simple intent of the subject matter's project. Much of it, as everyone realizes is thoroughly syncretic incorporating in one book radically different beliefs such as GENESIS with its Eloist (sp) and Yahwist tradition, i. e., "El eloihim" as THE (singular) eloihim (gods) and "Yaweh" as a personal name like Apollo.

Within the NEW TESTAMENT there are radical and thoroughly fundamental differences in theology, one of which is the importance of children. In the synoptic gospels, it is "Unless you become as a child you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven." In John's gospel and leters, something that unifies the theological viewpoint of the writer(s), children are belittled in a patronizing fashion. In Paul, the stage of childhood on the way to manhood and understanding of God is completely rejected. In other words, I would totally and thoroughly reject the unjustified interpretation of one writer by another - personally preferred and privately authoritative - writer to achieve a purely imaginary theological unity.

As to "story," the form of the story, the genre, is extremely important. And if the above thesis is taken seriously, then there can be radical differences in genre. This is one point, maybe the main point, Marc Millan is trying to get at. John Dominic Crossan has believably argued than MARK is a satirical comedy making fun of the hypocrisy and inconsistencies of all of the apostles. I would incorporate this into the genre of Euripidean tragedy, a form used by Ezechielos in the EXOGOGE, an Alexandrian Jewish play about the Exodus. "Euripidean tragedy" can become highly humerous and/or satirical as in IPHIGENIA IN TAURIS or ORESTES or ALCESTIS or BACCHAE or HELEN - indeed, all done in very different ways of humor from savage irony to almost slapstick humor, but not the less humorous. He definitely proved he could write 'real' tragedies, though very realistic beyond the level of Arthur Miller, so these variations in the 'theme' of tragedy are quite deliberate. He also wrote the only (nearly) complete satyr play to survive, the CYCLOPS which, strangely, is considerably toned down from the pornographic slapstick of the fragments of Aeschylus' and Sophocles' satyr plays.

Now MARK, if we drop all the endings attested too as much later than what survives of the core manuscript, takes the form of tragedy if read literally. There are arguments that the way the core manuscript ends implies more was written from the grammar of the ending. But, though these arguments should be taken into account, it assumes far too much about the knowledge and dialect or style of Greek of the original writer. And then there are the controversial Morton Smith discoveries which John Dominic Crossan accepts as authentic but not at all deserving Smith's weird interpretation of them (he interprets Mark as a real Carpocratian as I understand it). How that would effect my overall conclusion about MARK I do not know. But, again, it needs to be taken into consideration.

If this thesis, in turn is taken seriously, then JOHN 19:30 as the ending of some kind of story genre must be studied closely.

Now, as to "tetetestai" itself, Marc Millan desires a Aristotelian interpretation referring to "middle and final causes." Throw outs only: "teleotêti" Themistius (PARAPHRASE OF DE ANIMA 106.7) interprets as "in completeness" or "in actuality" referring to the actual intellect which is prior in nature (DE ANIMA 430a14-19) and (98.12, 430a10-14) "teleiotês (98.13) is "completion" , "an alternative for eidos or energeia in later Greek philosophy." There are a number of references to different forms of telos in the Greek-English Index to William E. Dooley, S.J., translation of Alexander of Aphrodesias' commentary on Aristotle's METAPHYSICS and, not to drag it out, Simplicius' commentaries ON THE SOUL, PHYSICS, Philoponus (I would have thought there would be more by him since he is a Christian) commentaries on COMING TO BE AND PERISHING and AGAINST ARISTOTLE ON THE ETERNITY OF THE WORLD. Marc Millam - if there are any specific varieties of "telos", other than "tetelestai", which I cannot find, which are relevant to your endeavor, tell me. There are numerous references I just found to telos & varieties in Robert B. Todd's version of Themistius' ON ARISTOTLE'S ON THE SOUL, but, again, no "tetelestai." The version I used at the first of this paragraph was TWO GREEK ARISTOTLEAN COMMENTATORS ON THE INTELLECT, trans. By Schroeder & Robert B, Todd. And there are numerous Neoplatonic texts I have not looked into.

If anyone could suggest a specific text relevant to "tetelestai", please tell me because I may have it. Or any suggestions at all.

'Sincerely'
Gary C. Moore
.
--

----- Original Message -----
From: MARC MILLAN
To: gottlos75@...
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 12:43 PM
Subject: tetetestai

Hi Gary:
 
I enjoyed your article about phronesis on the web.  I' m doing a research in New Testament Greek on the teleological meaning of the word "tetelestai" (Gr. tel+telos+teleo-tetelestai) in regards the sentence Christ uttered before His death in the Gospel of John 19:30: "It has been finished (tetelestai)." Unfortunately, many Christian Greek scholars are theologically biased in their explanation of "tetelestai", erroneously claiming the meaning of this word refers to a final end (e.g. goal)  in itself without any further implications, and this is due to their belief the soul of Christ could not suffer in hell. I know that theology might not be the topic of your main interest.  However, from a strict linguistic point of view, how does "teletestai" relates to Aristotle theory of "middle and final causes" by which some middle goals turn (Gr.tel) into means to fulfill a final goal (Gr. teleios: perfection), or as you already pointed out...it pursues the goal, and specifically the ??????? (mesotes: the mean). Any comments or articles that you might have written on the etymology of telos+tetelestai (or some other references) are well appreciated. Thanks.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
  Marc Millan. Los Angeles  
 .
From: Gary C. Moore
To: Melinda Millan
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:44 AM
Subject: Re: tetetestai

Dear Marc,
 
First, may I send this letter (or you) to PhilosophyAncient@yahoogroups.com? and art_of_memory@yahoogroups.com?
 
I shall think on this. It sounds interesting. You far overestemate by abilities, but this is an enjoyable challenge. I shall go through the Greek terminology listed in the back of my books (of what I can find). Richard Hope's translation of Aristotle's METAPHYSICS (and maybe some of his other translations) gives at the back an "analytical index" by type of concept. Awkward to begin with, since I do not understand what order the words are put in, but once you find it, Hope has it placed within a related group of terms. Page 328, number 14, has "teleion" under "I.Being." Page 361, number 100 has "telos" and number 100a has "teleutaios" under "Categories." Also, maybe unrelated to you, is "peras" on page 372, number 131 in the same group. One immediate reference is GORGIAS 467c+, LAWS 7.807c+, LACHES 185d+, LYSIS 219c+. These just refer to the English "end." For "final causes", PHAEDO 97-98, REPUBLIC 1.352e+ . 
 
You are probably familiar with the Perseus website. If you are not, it is a VERY rich resource that, however closes down around 3 to 6 am. You can look up your passage --
 
JOHN 19:30 -- [30] hote oun elaben to oxos [ho] Iêsous eipen Tetelestai, kai klinas tên kephalên paredôken to pneuma.  and click on Tetelestai Tetelestai and bring up the full grammatical analysis of the term --
 
Tell me if this is actually helpful or if I am completely off base.
'Sincerely'
Gary C. Moore
Dear Gary:
 
I' m sorry I could not get back to you a little sooner, this week has been kind of hectic preparing the final draft of a manuscript.  Anyway, I really appreciate you having taking the time and the research you did in regards to "tetelestai."  Yes, I am familiar with Perseus and the Liddell/Scott Greek-English Lexicon. Unfortunately, Liddell is helpful but rather general in its definitions about the formula: tel=telos=teteleo=tetelestai=teleios.  And yes, I think it would be a great idea as you suggested to send a message to PhilosophyAncient@yahoogroups.com? and art_of_memory@yahoogroups.com to see if someone could explain the etymological break down of the aforementioned words in regards to middle and final causes.  The question is the following. Does tetelestai implies a final termination in itself, or is possible that as a middle cause it might continue developing itself under a different situation until the final cause with its intended teleios is reached?  Thanks again for all your efforts in regards to this matter and let me know if something interesting develops. Best regards. Marc Millan




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]