Author:

Keywords:

Edward Schillebeeckx, Giorgio Agamben, Eschatology, Temporality, Apocalyptic, Messianism

Abstract:

The work of Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben has drawn heavily on Christian concepts and terminology, especially the letters of St. Paul and the ‘messianism’ he finds therein. Agamben’s goal is to critically reevaluate the construction of contemporary society and its reliance on sovereign power and violence. The ‘messianic’ as a category is opposed to this system of violent exclusion. Agamben seeks to develop the potential of the messianic in several areas, including messianic time as a contemporary view of temporality. This temporal insight provides a view of the ontological structure of the human subject that has potential for political praxis in connection with Agamben’s wider project. His overall account of the messianic is related via language to the doctrine of original sin. Here, we will [1] offer a reading of Agamben’s messianic time that he takes from Paul, as it applies specifically to ontology. The moment of difference or ‘non-coincidence’ that appears in the messianic is of particular interest. This ‘non-coincidence’ does not appear as a foundation that grounds the subject, but precisely as what “nullifies the entire subject”. We will then [2] present a further, critical development of this temporal structure by repositioning the place of language from the perspective of Christian hermeneutical eschatology. Agamben’s use of Christian theology is not immune to critique. In the context of eschatology there is both room to include his temporal ‘discovery’ for the human subject, and to criticize his appropriation of Paul and the foundational role of Christian experience. For this critique the work of Catholic theologian Edward Schillebeeckx will provide [3] a praxical reorientation of the temporal structure at work within the Christian narrative and that narrative’s relation to language and history. This is especially true regarding the role of the messianic in experience, and Schillebeeckx’s own elaboration of eschatological time as non-coincidence. Schillebeeckx’s interpretation of original sin will be brought into play as a counterpoint to Agamben, especially in the continuity that each thinker sees in the wider biblical tradition. Agamben draws a line directly from the Fall to the Tower of Babel. Schillebeeckx, as we will argue, sees a broader connection to the event of Pentecost (Acts 2:4¬–12). This difference comes from the role of the Messiah in the interpretations of Schillebeeckx and Agamben, and it is this difference that is decisive for any praxical appropriation of the messianic for the contemporary situation.