What do you think?
Rate this book
El tiempo que resta. Comentario a la Carta a los Romanos
Parece llegado el momento de una nueva confrontación con las Cartas de Pablo. A lo largo de las jornadas de esta lectura, Giorgio Agamben busca restituir a las Cartas paulinas su rango de textos mesiánicos fundamentales de Occidente, en contra de una práctica milenaria de traducción y comentario que literalmente ha eliminado de ellas el mesianismo. Interrogando el mensaje paulino desde pensadores como Benjamin, Schmitt, Kafka o Scholem, de lo que se trata es de comprender la aporía que afecta a la estructura misma del tiempo mesiánico, ese tiempo que Pablo define como el momento presente, conjunción particular de memoria y esperanza, de pasado y presente, de plenitud y deficiencia, de origen y fin.
183 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2000
25 people are currently reading
558 people want to read
About the author
Giorgio Agamben
241 books989 followersGiorgio Agamben is one of the leading figures in Italian and contemporary continental philosophy. He is the author of Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life; Remnants of Auschwitz: The Witness and the Archive; Profanations; The Signature of All Things: On Method, and other books. Through the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s he treated a wide range of topics, including aesthetics, literature, language, ontology, nihilism, and radical political thought.
In recent years, his work has had a deep impact on contemporary scholarship in a number of disciplines in the Anglo-American intellectual world. Born in Rome in 1942, Agamben completed studies in Law and Philosophy with a doctoral thesis on the political thought of Simone Weil, and participated in Martin Heidegger’s seminars on Hegel and Heraclitus as a postdoctoral scholar.
He rose to international prominence after the publication of Homo Sacer in 1995. Translated into English in 1998, the book’s analyses of law, life, and state power appeared uncannily prescient after the attacks on New York City and Washington, DC in September 2001, and the resultant shifts in the geopolitical landscape. Provoking a wave of scholarly interest in the philosopher’s work, the book also marked the beginning of a 20-year research project, which represents Agamben’s most important contribution to political philosophy.
In recent years, his work has had a deep impact on contemporary scholarship in a number of disciplines in the Anglo-American intellectual world. Born in Rome in 1942, Agamben completed studies in Law and Philosophy with a doctoral thesis on the political thought of Simone Weil, and participated in Martin Heidegger’s seminars on Hegel and Heraclitus as a postdoctoral scholar.
He rose to international prominence after the publication of Homo Sacer in 1995. Translated into English in 1998, the book’s analyses of law, life, and state power appeared uncannily prescient after the attacks on New York City and Washington, DC in September 2001, and the resultant shifts in the geopolitical landscape. Provoking a wave of scholarly interest in the philosopher’s work, the book also marked the beginning of a 20-year research project, which represents Agamben’s most important contribution to political philosophy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
February 2, 2023
It’s hard to get to the end of this book without feeling that one has been tricked in some way. The avowed goal is straightforward enough: to “restore (Saint) Paul’s letters to the status of the fundamental messianic text for the Western tradition”. The method, even more so: to read and comment on the first ten words(!) of the first verse(!) of the Letter to the Romans as the means of such a restoration. One would think this would entail a simple exercise in exegesis, especially since the book's format is set up so as to go through the verse almost word by word - chapter two is on "calling" (Kletos), three on "separated" (Aphorismenos) and so on. Ten words in all, over six chapters. Easy, right? Not in the slightest! As it turns out, Agamben's commentaries are probably better thought of as 'opportunities' - one wants to say 'excuses' - for him to pursue his far-flung interests, exploring and adventuring in territory both near and, at times, maximally remote from what is given at face value.
Who would have thought, for instance, that the chapter on "calling" would lead into a rabbit hole that begins with Weber's book on the Protestant Ethic, winds its way toward a reflection on Marx's understanding of 'class', before engaging both Adorno and Kant, using the Pauline text as a basis for criticizing both? And that's just one chapter! This is then, a book of extreme density, with almost every second page developing points in unexpected directions, dipping in and out, not only of biblical hermeneutics, but also into the history of philosophy, along with a constellation of concepts all geared towards clarifying - or better, elaborating on - the nature of Pauline messianism. Indeed, for Agamben, Paul's letters are the book-end of an entire tradition of messianic meditations, on the other side of which lies Benjamin's Theses on the Philosophy of History, to which Paul's texts are strictly contemporary, despite the 2000 year gap between their composition.
It is just this contemporaneity which allows Agamben to skip between so much vast material in such a small span of space - the body of the text itself is no more than 140 or so pages, with the last 40 or so given over to Agamben's own translation of the Greek text, placed interlinearly as a point of reference. So what then, is the nature of the messianism at stake? Perhaps the best way to explain it is by means of Agamben's own distinction between the messianic and the eschatological (or, what is the same, between the messianic and the apocalyptic): where the apocalypse or the eschaton deals with the 'end of time' (what comes 'after' time, as it were), the messianic deals with, precisely, 'the time that remains'. The time 'in between' ordinary time, and the time's end. However, more than just a chronological marker (a 'when'), messianic time also marks a kind of quality of time: a temporality in which time achieves a kind of relation to its own end (thus not the 'end of time', but a 'time of the end'), transforming itself from within (Agamben calls it a 'time within time').
Exactly how to parse this is complex - clearly! - and at best here I can gesture toward, at least, the specificity of what the messianic 'is' for Agamben. If anything, what The Time That Remains excels at is precisely in developing the sprawling ramifications and implications of thinking time in this way. More than messianism, one will find in here Agamben's reflections on the Pauline origin of Hegel's concept of 'aufhebung' (sublation), the Christian origins of rhyme (like... rhyme as a literary device as such), a critique of deconstruction as a 'thwarted messanism', and as ever, Agamben ongoing critique of the law - among other things. The ambition and erudition on display here is (typically) awe-inducing, and as usual with Agamben, The Time That Remains fits as a fractal piece of his larger philosophical project, with call-backs and forwards to his other works. Most notably, I think, his The Sacrament of Language (whose stakes TTTR clarifies in a way not found in that book!), and Remnants of Auschwitz, insofar as there is more here about the concept of the 'remnant' than there is in that book (v. annoyed about this!).
Who would have thought, for instance, that the chapter on "calling" would lead into a rabbit hole that begins with Weber's book on the Protestant Ethic, winds its way toward a reflection on Marx's understanding of 'class', before engaging both Adorno and Kant, using the Pauline text as a basis for criticizing both? And that's just one chapter! This is then, a book of extreme density, with almost every second page developing points in unexpected directions, dipping in and out, not only of biblical hermeneutics, but also into the history of philosophy, along with a constellation of concepts all geared towards clarifying - or better, elaborating on - the nature of Pauline messianism. Indeed, for Agamben, Paul's letters are the book-end of an entire tradition of messianic meditations, on the other side of which lies Benjamin's Theses on the Philosophy of History, to which Paul's texts are strictly contemporary, despite the 2000 year gap between their composition.
It is just this contemporaneity which allows Agamben to skip between so much vast material in such a small span of space - the body of the text itself is no more than 140 or so pages, with the last 40 or so given over to Agamben's own translation of the Greek text, placed interlinearly as a point of reference. So what then, is the nature of the messianism at stake? Perhaps the best way to explain it is by means of Agamben's own distinction between the messianic and the eschatological (or, what is the same, between the messianic and the apocalyptic): where the apocalypse or the eschaton deals with the 'end of time' (what comes 'after' time, as it were), the messianic deals with, precisely, 'the time that remains'. The time 'in between' ordinary time, and the time's end. However, more than just a chronological marker (a 'when'), messianic time also marks a kind of quality of time: a temporality in which time achieves a kind of relation to its own end (thus not the 'end of time', but a 'time of the end'), transforming itself from within (Agamben calls it a 'time within time').
Exactly how to parse this is complex - clearly! - and at best here I can gesture toward, at least, the specificity of what the messianic 'is' for Agamben. If anything, what The Time That Remains excels at is precisely in developing the sprawling ramifications and implications of thinking time in this way. More than messianism, one will find in here Agamben's reflections on the Pauline origin of Hegel's concept of 'aufhebung' (sublation), the Christian origins of rhyme (like... rhyme as a literary device as such), a critique of deconstruction as a 'thwarted messanism', and as ever, Agamben ongoing critique of the law - among other things. The ambition and erudition on display here is (typically) awe-inducing, and as usual with Agamben, The Time That Remains fits as a fractal piece of his larger philosophical project, with call-backs and forwards to his other works. Most notably, I think, his The Sacrament of Language (whose stakes TTTR clarifies in a way not found in that book!), and Remnants of Auschwitz, insofar as there is more here about the concept of the 'remnant' than there is in that book (v. annoyed about this!).
January 5, 2019
A revolutionary and phenomenological reading/interpretation of Paul's letters in view of the whole 2000 years of the Western thinking. Is it that only one man by the name of Paul gave rise to the western thought and imagination? The hope and optimism of Resurrection, salvation held firmly in one's subjectivity, the Kingdom of God being realized from within, the ultimate reality in a-historic Christ-event (which has happened already but also is not yet)--in short, the ultimate triumph of idealism in the face of harsh reality--all this stems from one man named Paul. The entire western idealism, including the thought of Messiahnism of Walter Benjamin, is traced back to Paul, as if in writing the few letters Paul has determined the course of the entire western civilization, as if the sending of Being that determined the West, according to Heidegger, had already happened in Paul's letters.
September 6, 2007
This is simply an incredible book. It remains suggestive rather than fully developed at several points, but nonetheless A. puts his finger on key issues, and if one can tolerate his brevity and compactness then almost each section calls out for further reflection.
His take on Paul's as not (hōs mē) fits in elegantly with A.'s arguments on the pitfalls of identity in The Coming Community 10 years earlier (A. advocating there his sense of the singular in opposition to the individual-vs.-universal trap). A. gets criticized for essentializing his political categories -- and it's true, he does (he elsewhere thinks of "sovereignty" and "bare life," for example, as relational essences rather than always differentiated phenomena) -- yet thinking through his categories and themes has a certain inspiring value of its own, whether or not they are "actionable" in any immediately utilitarian sense. Criticisms of A. that revolve around the futility or uselessness of his riffs on passivity and not-being are also valid, yet I'm not convinced A. is necessarily advocating those concepts in the same way one would or should advocate a particular political agenda, for example. (The whole point of concepts like "whatever being" or the logic of "not-not-[x]," after all, is that they attempt to allow for the uniqueness of any and every situation; one can and should always take the lived individual or group implications from there, where one will...) I don't agree with A. about metaphysics (he's still always too Heideggerian, which to me is just a cop-out), but he gets the logic of messianism dead-on. So, don't just fall for the Paul-via-Badiou-and-Zizek revival; get the messianism right from A. (Also, where else will one find an analytic comparison between the limitations of vanguard political parties and the challenges of early Christian identity formation, in regard to the non-coincidence of organization and community? Or incisive reflection on the spiritual Franciscans' sense of usus vs. property in relation to Paul and the legal doctrine of their day?)
Some nice passages:
-- "The messianic vocation is not a right, nor does it furnish an identity; rather, it is a generic potentiality that can be used without ever being owned" (p. 26).
-- "The Messiah has already arrived, the messianic event has already happened, but its presence contains within itself another time, which stretches its parousia, not in order to defer it, but, on the contrary, to make it graspable" (p. 71).
-- "...2 Thess. 2 may not be used to found a 'Christian doctrine' of power in any manner whatsoever" (p. 111).
To me the only disappointment with this book is that, considering the whole last section on W. Benjamin, B.'s "theologico-political fragment" is only handled in a dismissive way, in passing, rather than in-depth. Also, concluding the section on messianic time via the history of poetic rhyme schemes (!) is a strange reminder that A. started out as an aesthete (cf. 1970's The Man Without Content)....
His take on Paul's as not (hōs mē) fits in elegantly with A.'s arguments on the pitfalls of identity in The Coming Community 10 years earlier (A. advocating there his sense of the singular in opposition to the individual-vs.-universal trap). A. gets criticized for essentializing his political categories -- and it's true, he does (he elsewhere thinks of "sovereignty" and "bare life," for example, as relational essences rather than always differentiated phenomena) -- yet thinking through his categories and themes has a certain inspiring value of its own, whether or not they are "actionable" in any immediately utilitarian sense. Criticisms of A. that revolve around the futility or uselessness of his riffs on passivity and not-being are also valid, yet I'm not convinced A. is necessarily advocating those concepts in the same way one would or should advocate a particular political agenda, for example. (The whole point of concepts like "whatever being" or the logic of "not-not-[x]," after all, is that they attempt to allow for the uniqueness of any and every situation; one can and should always take the lived individual or group implications from there, where one will...) I don't agree with A. about metaphysics (he's still always too Heideggerian, which to me is just a cop-out), but he gets the logic of messianism dead-on. So, don't just fall for the Paul-via-Badiou-and-Zizek revival; get the messianism right from A. (Also, where else will one find an analytic comparison between the limitations of vanguard political parties and the challenges of early Christian identity formation, in regard to the non-coincidence of organization and community? Or incisive reflection on the spiritual Franciscans' sense of usus vs. property in relation to Paul and the legal doctrine of their day?)
Some nice passages:
-- "The messianic vocation is not a right, nor does it furnish an identity; rather, it is a generic potentiality that can be used without ever being owned" (p. 26).
-- "The Messiah has already arrived, the messianic event has already happened, but its presence contains within itself another time, which stretches its parousia, not in order to defer it, but, on the contrary, to make it graspable" (p. 71).
-- "...2 Thess. 2 may not be used to found a 'Christian doctrine' of power in any manner whatsoever" (p. 111).
To me the only disappointment with this book is that, considering the whole last section on W. Benjamin, B.'s "theologico-political fragment" is only handled in a dismissive way, in passing, rather than in-depth. Also, concluding the section on messianic time via the history of poetic rhyme schemes (!) is a strange reminder that A. started out as an aesthete (cf. 1970's The Man Without Content)....
January 19, 2018
The amount of sheer *insight* found between the pages of a philosophy book never ceases to amaze me.
April 11, 2007
Agamben writes on a dizzying array of topics, and my interest was piqued when I learned that he had written a Scripture commentary. This book is a word by word commentary on the first ten words (in Greek) of St. Paul's Letter to the Romans. Agamben argues, in this book, that the whole of Pauline theology can be found in these words. It's a wild ride, including an analysis of Roman social customs and slavery, political theory, theology, linguistics, and a history of the Franciscan order. But, anyone really wanting a non-traditional but orthodox examination of Pauline theology should definitely read this book.
July 29, 2023
So much is packed in this 145 page book. History of philosophy, philosophy of history, theology, political theory. I’m not sure I can even summarize Agamben’s thoughts here, but he beautifully and convincingly draws out the way in which Jesus as messiah divides time and law to create a freedom within and not against law and time, such that law is made inoperative but still law.
Much of the work here is not easy on this first read, but this is a text which is key to my theological wresting right now, and perhaps even transformative of my understanding of political theory.
Much of the work here is not easy on this first read, but this is a text which is key to my theological wresting right now, and perhaps even transformative of my understanding of political theory.
Read
August 16, 20191. The Division of Members by Law / The Law Divides itself
Agamben argues that the meaning of nomos derives from Nemo as ‘’to divide, to attribute parts’’ and the law of division which divides man into foreskin and circumcised which can be considered as a division between Jews and non-Jews. After locating the division of members by law, he asserts law is also dividing itself. The Messiah conflicts with the law in two terms he specifically reminds ‘’Torah of Beriah – the law of creation, the law of world as not redeemed and the Torah of Atzilut, the law that precedes creation which Messiah must restore’’. Therefore, the two types of belief have been defined by him with the aid of Buber that Jewish ennuah with respect to objective faith of Jesus, Greek Pistis with regard to subjective faith in Jesus, they conceded the faith as the first with belonging to the community and as the second with recognition of faith.
Sarx and pneuma, flesh and breath against the law were enunciated by him within the scope of separation of Paul as Pharisee, the community which separates themselves from pagans and from am-ha’aretz that laypeople, ignorant farmers unable to follow the law. The community’s monopoly of law did not only live within the border of Torah but also they declared oral Toral which they own as ‘dividing wall’ that prevents contact with any impurities and the wall has been demolished by messianic proclamation when he used flesh and breath pointing new division.
This division between slave and free by law draws attention to the stance of Paul, as a slave of Messiah/doulos. Agamben’s translation of doulos can be read in a dualistic way either/or he becomes a slave of Messiah, he was not worthy of being called apostle and becomes separated as such. Those readings have their support by name of Paul when he becomes a slave of Messiah he has changed his name which was common to the tradition of the communities to give a new name for a slave when an owner of a slave changes. Thus, Agamben underlines Paul means ‘little’ and he does not address him with a surname or any affiliation except Paul. Doulos implies super-slave that neutralization of division of law and transformation of this division in relation to the messianic event.
2. Division of the Subject - Sarx/Pneuma
Starting with ‘separated as such’ Agamben indicates a division between sarx/pneuma – flesh/breath as the division of division itself which meant the division of division of Jews and non-Jews in themselves as a subject. This division meant that intension rather than extension which cannot be debunked by appearances, consequently, if a true Jew is not true in regard to apparent circumcision is not on the flesh. Thence, exhaustive division of law is blurred by ‘’as not’’ in stark contrast with ‘’as if’’ since Jews may not Jews and non-Jews may not non-Jews. It purports a Nicholas de Cusa’a A – not-A and non non- A by demonstrating non non-Jew concept – as nothing but a remnant.
Agamben states Blanchot ‘’ man is indestructible that can be infinitely destroyed’’. Aristotle dislocates infinite’s cemented place from something beyond that there can be nothing to something which has always something beyond, potential infinity. The essence of a man as Blanchot shows remain something after that destruction which cannot be possible for a numerical proportion because of it against the unity/further division. Thus, the remnant, by being not numerical proportion as Agamben addressed, it cannot coincide with itself by being one-in-number. It uproots number (one) status without further division but adding with parts(a further division of magnitude is still infinite) notwithstanding they do not coincide with themselves by per accidents to an infinitely generated division of division of the whole. In a keen sense, what is partial is the secular world before God will be ‘’all in all’’ the remnant in the time of the now, Agamben states, ‘’the real-time, (time of subject) is nothing other than remnant.’’
3. Division of Chronos and Kairos
When Paul declared his time in the present time, he declared messianic time at the same time. Agamben defines messianic time by using a phrase of Garchia ‘’the messianic time is not the end of the time, but the time of the end’’. Then, he introduces two terms namely ‘alam hazzeh: the direction of the world from creation to its end(chronological time) and ‘alam hobba: the world to come atemporal eternity that comes after the end of the world(eschatological time). As Agamben propounds Paul concerns neither the chronological time nor apocalyptical eschaton but that time he lives, then the remnant between two times. He opposed representable/unthinkable time as spatialized time with thinkable/unrepresentable time which is messianic time is familiar from Bergson’s durée that exceeds Kant’s spatial time by making an intuited time.
Agamben compares representation of chronological time when we are in and separates the time from ourselves and it transforms us the impotent spectators toward the life we live with messianic time in which we are able to hold our representation of time as operational time, when we are in time and representing the time within us, it is operational time. By the same token, Kairos is not separated from Chronos, but abridged Chronos and the essence of the subject has been delayed without being conscious of kairos. Yet, one should keep Paul’s intention of usage of par-ousia, according to Agamben heterogenous kairos and chronos, cannot be added together. This par-ousia ‘’being is beside itself in the present’’ is nothing but fort-da play of a child, par-ousia emerges and impossible to coincide with it. In coextensive case of kairos and chronos, messianic time cannot be taken as supplementary since it tears chronological time in itself. It contracts past to presents and present to past.
Agamben employs two concepts to elucidate the matter that typo-relation and recapitulation. This usage touches upon the relation between past and present most likely making past alive in the present in order to open toward its fulfillment in the messianic present, as Douglas Harink stated. He gives a typological example of ‘Adam through whom sin entered the world’ and ‘Messiah through whom grace will abound for men’. This typological relation exemplifies transformation of past and future. Harink refers to typological relation between two types of notions; ‘’Isaac and Jakob become types of notions who in the now-time are receiving mercy while Pharoah becomes a type of Israel which is in the now time hardened with a message of Messiah.’’ As for Paul, Isaac, Jakob, and Pharoah as chronoi were brought to the present of kairos of the Messiah and fulfilled. For recapitulation, he epitomized ‘’love your neighbor as yourself’ pleroma of law, it underlines simultaneity, not an identity and it relates past and present with Messiah.
Agamben argues that the meaning of nomos derives from Nemo as ‘’to divide, to attribute parts’’ and the law of division which divides man into foreskin and circumcised which can be considered as a division between Jews and non-Jews. After locating the division of members by law, he asserts law is also dividing itself. The Messiah conflicts with the law in two terms he specifically reminds ‘’Torah of Beriah – the law of creation, the law of world as not redeemed and the Torah of Atzilut, the law that precedes creation which Messiah must restore’’. Therefore, the two types of belief have been defined by him with the aid of Buber that Jewish ennuah with respect to objective faith of Jesus, Greek Pistis with regard to subjective faith in Jesus, they conceded the faith as the first with belonging to the community and as the second with recognition of faith.
Sarx and pneuma, flesh and breath against the law were enunciated by him within the scope of separation of Paul as Pharisee, the community which separates themselves from pagans and from am-ha’aretz that laypeople, ignorant farmers unable to follow the law. The community’s monopoly of law did not only live within the border of Torah but also they declared oral Toral which they own as ‘dividing wall’ that prevents contact with any impurities and the wall has been demolished by messianic proclamation when he used flesh and breath pointing new division.
This division between slave and free by law draws attention to the stance of Paul, as a slave of Messiah/doulos. Agamben’s translation of doulos can be read in a dualistic way either/or he becomes a slave of Messiah, he was not worthy of being called apostle and becomes separated as such. Those readings have their support by name of Paul when he becomes a slave of Messiah he has changed his name which was common to the tradition of the communities to give a new name for a slave when an owner of a slave changes. Thus, Agamben underlines Paul means ‘little’ and he does not address him with a surname or any affiliation except Paul. Doulos implies super-slave that neutralization of division of law and transformation of this division in relation to the messianic event.
2. Division of the Subject - Sarx/Pneuma
Starting with ‘separated as such’ Agamben indicates a division between sarx/pneuma – flesh/breath as the division of division itself which meant the division of division of Jews and non-Jews in themselves as a subject. This division meant that intension rather than extension which cannot be debunked by appearances, consequently, if a true Jew is not true in regard to apparent circumcision is not on the flesh. Thence, exhaustive division of law is blurred by ‘’as not’’ in stark contrast with ‘’as if’’ since Jews may not Jews and non-Jews may not non-Jews. It purports a Nicholas de Cusa’a A – not-A and non non- A by demonstrating non non-Jew concept – as nothing but a remnant.
Agamben states Blanchot ‘’ man is indestructible that can be infinitely destroyed’’. Aristotle dislocates infinite’s cemented place from something beyond that there can be nothing to something which has always something beyond, potential infinity. The essence of a man as Blanchot shows remain something after that destruction which cannot be possible for a numerical proportion because of it against the unity/further division. Thus, the remnant, by being not numerical proportion as Agamben addressed, it cannot coincide with itself by being one-in-number. It uproots number (one) status without further division but adding with parts(a further division of magnitude is still infinite) notwithstanding they do not coincide with themselves by per accidents to an infinitely generated division of division of the whole. In a keen sense, what is partial is the secular world before God will be ‘’all in all’’ the remnant in the time of the now, Agamben states, ‘’the real-time, (time of subject) is nothing other than remnant.’’
3. Division of Chronos and Kairos
When Paul declared his time in the present time, he declared messianic time at the same time. Agamben defines messianic time by using a phrase of Garchia ‘’the messianic time is not the end of the time, but the time of the end’’. Then, he introduces two terms namely ‘alam hazzeh: the direction of the world from creation to its end(chronological time) and ‘alam hobba: the world to come atemporal eternity that comes after the end of the world(eschatological time). As Agamben propounds Paul concerns neither the chronological time nor apocalyptical eschaton but that time he lives, then the remnant between two times. He opposed representable/unthinkable time as spatialized time with thinkable/unrepresentable time which is messianic time is familiar from Bergson’s durée that exceeds Kant’s spatial time by making an intuited time.
Agamben compares representation of chronological time when we are in and separates the time from ourselves and it transforms us the impotent spectators toward the life we live with messianic time in which we are able to hold our representation of time as operational time, when we are in time and representing the time within us, it is operational time. By the same token, Kairos is not separated from Chronos, but abridged Chronos and the essence of the subject has been delayed without being conscious of kairos. Yet, one should keep Paul’s intention of usage of par-ousia, according to Agamben heterogenous kairos and chronos, cannot be added together. This par-ousia ‘’being is beside itself in the present’’ is nothing but fort-da play of a child, par-ousia emerges and impossible to coincide with it. In coextensive case of kairos and chronos, messianic time cannot be taken as supplementary since it tears chronological time in itself. It contracts past to presents and present to past.
Agamben employs two concepts to elucidate the matter that typo-relation and recapitulation. This usage touches upon the relation between past and present most likely making past alive in the present in order to open toward its fulfillment in the messianic present, as Douglas Harink stated. He gives a typological example of ‘Adam through whom sin entered the world’ and ‘Messiah through whom grace will abound for men’. This typological relation exemplifies transformation of past and future. Harink refers to typological relation between two types of notions; ‘’Isaac and Jakob become types of notions who in the now-time are receiving mercy while Pharoah becomes a type of Israel which is in the now time hardened with a message of Messiah.’’ As for Paul, Isaac, Jakob, and Pharoah as chronoi were brought to the present of kairos of the Messiah and fulfilled. For recapitulation, he epitomized ‘’love your neighbor as yourself’ pleroma of law, it underlines simultaneity, not an identity and it relates past and present with Messiah.
January 23, 2012
Without a doubt Agamben's style in this book, compared to that in "The Open", was drastically influenced by Derrida. His Deconstructive-style rants were both exciting and infuriating. He explicitly states the questions that he seemingly intends to answer and, regardless of what he may think, fails to do so. Agamben missed some key scriptures that would have undoubtedly helped shape some sort of an answer to (at least) the question of the state of the law in the Messianic time-frame. Nonetheless, the book brought up interesting points and noteworthy references (regardless of whether or not they actually supported said points).
February 22, 2013
I found this a difficult but stimulating book. The difficulty, I think, has to do with the book dealing with a line of thought that hasn't been dealt with much. The concept of "Messianic" time that Paul was operating from is subsumed into a flatter continuation of history that misses the quality of the Messianic time ushered in with the Resurrection of Christ. I'll have to keep thinking to get my head around some of this thought and maybe be able to explain it to myself & even others. Recommended to anyone who wants to take on this challenge.
February 1, 2020
Agamben does here an impressive commentary on the Letter To The Romans, more impressive in the variety of the concepts he is choosing to use in the commentary than of the hermeutical or biblical accuracy. An interest short read that motivates it's existence by showing an applicability - over a verse - that can be a good exercise for the future reading.
Agamben does not give a conclusion to the problem started here and tends to left a lot of concepts unresolved and not extended. A must have for the Italian philosophy and a good addition the a graduate library, as the language of the text is the most specialized it can be and needs a good amount of extra searching or knowledge to be fully analyzed.
Agamben does not give a conclusion to the problem started here and tends to left a lot of concepts unresolved and not extended. A must have for the Italian philosophy and a good addition the a graduate library, as the language of the text is the most specialized it can be and needs a good amount of extra searching or knowledge to be fully analyzed.
June 5, 2025
Agamben recurre a Pablo para articular una política mesiánica que no busca instaurar un nuevo orden, sino desactivar el existente. El Mesías no trae una nueva ley, sino que “hace inoperante” (katárgesis) la ley vigente sustrayéndola de su función normativa. Agamben encuentra en la “vocación” (klesis) una condición existencial que redefine la relación con el mundo: vivir en él “como si no” (hôs mê) se perteneciera a él. En esta transformación de la “llamada”, descubre una nueva posibilidad política que ofrece los elementos para pensar en una vida no regulada por el poder ni por la ley, sino por una relación justa con los otros basada en la “forma del amor”: la “nueva criatura” de la que habla Pablo es la “vieja” pero vivida según el tiempo mesiánico.
January 17, 2026
Highlights: the klēsis chapter; the meditation on Schmitt’s compromised interpretation of Paul (which is really an expansion of Taubes’s point on this subject); Aufhebung as a secularized katargesis.
I lose Agamben in the last two chapters. The Benjamin chapter (which is, per the book’s summary, the book’s very own telos) in particular felt a bit ridiculous to me; but maybe I wasn’t born for philosophizing!
I lose Agamben in the last two chapters. The Benjamin chapter (which is, per the book’s summary, the book’s very own telos) in particular felt a bit ridiculous to me; but maybe I wasn’t born for philosophizing!
December 16, 2025
Многомудрый текст, отправляющийся от толкования буквально нескольких слов из Рим. 1 в довольно разнообразные экскурсы, главным образом (но не только) лингвистические, теологические и проч., дабы придти к "Тезисам о философии истории" Беньямина, следующему сопоставимому мессианистскому произведению. Впечатляет, но несколько и кружит голову.
November 22, 2021
بهدلم ننشست.
Want to read
March 9, 2026St Paul political theology, pauline works as messianic judaism ?! (not totally sure if thats right). Also draws parallels between pauline letters and walter benjamin
February 21, 2017
This one made a deep impression on me, but if you're looking for an orthodox exegetical commentary on Romans, this isn't it. Agamben is more interested in developing his own ideas than giving a precisely accurate interpretation of St. Paul, which, although an approach I can't really commend, produces some fun results.
One thing I really appreciate is Agamben's close attention to language, something that shows up on almost every page, and is perhaps most clearly shown in the fact that the book is not so much as a commentary on Romans as such as it is just the first ten words of Romans, each carefully broken apart and analyzed in the original Greek. But it's not just the Greek that Agamben discusses; numerous other terms and concepts get defined and put under his microscope. I found this style of writing both illuminating and engaging.
Look, I'm not a philosopher, so I'm not going to provide a lot of erudite commentary on the subjects discussed in the book. I do think his discussion of the messianic call, while suspect in some ways, is challenging in the way that it emphasizes the radical change that Jesus creates in the identity and worldly status of every Christian. However, I thought his reduction of the apostolic announcement to a non-propositional liver quiver enacted by the performative word (or whatever he was trying to say; I don't think I'm that far off the mark) was pretty weak and probably reflects Agamben's preference for non-dogmatic religion more than anything. I mean, one may well ask after reading Agamben's discussion on the content of the Christian faith, did St. Paul believe Jesus was the Son of God or didn't he? He would attempt to split the horns of the dilemma in the way I alluded to, but suffice it to say I'm not convinced.
But what compelled me about this book was the concise, dense, fascinating articulation of Agamben's philosophical questions and emphases, combined with his philological method. This was definitely the most difficult book to understand that I've ever read, but I found it intensely rewarding to tarry with the text and get a peak inside Agamben's very intelligent and sometimes quite charming mind.
One thing I really appreciate is Agamben's close attention to language, something that shows up on almost every page, and is perhaps most clearly shown in the fact that the book is not so much as a commentary on Romans as such as it is just the first ten words of Romans, each carefully broken apart and analyzed in the original Greek. But it's not just the Greek that Agamben discusses; numerous other terms and concepts get defined and put under his microscope. I found this style of writing both illuminating and engaging.
Look, I'm not a philosopher, so I'm not going to provide a lot of erudite commentary on the subjects discussed in the book. I do think his discussion of the messianic call, while suspect in some ways, is challenging in the way that it emphasizes the radical change that Jesus creates in the identity and worldly status of every Christian. However, I thought his reduction of the apostolic announcement to a non-propositional liver quiver enacted by the performative word (or whatever he was trying to say; I don't think I'm that far off the mark) was pretty weak and probably reflects Agamben's preference for non-dogmatic religion more than anything. I mean, one may well ask after reading Agamben's discussion on the content of the Christian faith, did St. Paul believe Jesus was the Son of God or didn't he? He would attempt to split the horns of the dilemma in the way I alluded to, but suffice it to say I'm not convinced.
But what compelled me about this book was the concise, dense, fascinating articulation of Agamben's philosophical questions and emphases, combined with his philological method. This was definitely the most difficult book to understand that I've ever read, but I found it intensely rewarding to tarry with the text and get a peak inside Agamben's very intelligent and sometimes quite charming mind.
December 27, 2024
Your average Sunday classes with style.
Read
June 5, 2025Though it started slow, I was pretty engaged after a bit. I think I would’ve gotten more out of this if I knew Latin and especially Greek. The whole thing was waaay more philological/linguistic/etymological than I was expecting, which was at times hard to follow when more (bar Hebrew) of the words and phrases discussed were unfamiliar to me.
The number of authors and even texts mentioned in this that I read or will be reading for this course is actually boggling. Gotta be a high score. Nice to see him discuss Badiou’s thesis. His refutation was not all too convincing, but I may have not fully understood the premise established in the previous chapter. I only wish I would have read the Taubes first, might’ve helped at times.
The number of authors and even texts mentioned in this that I read or will be reading for this course is actually boggling. Gotta be a high score. Nice to see him discuss Badiou’s thesis. His refutation was not all too convincing, but I may have not fully understood the premise established in the previous chapter. I only wish I would have read the Taubes first, might’ve helped at times.
May 14, 2009
Standing on the shoulders of thinkers like Weber and Benjamin, Agamben attempts to liberate not only the book of Romans but the very concept of christos from the Christian tradition. He makes a compelling case that "messiah" is the founding principle of the occidental political tradition. He also incorporates and elaborates on his well known idea "the state of exception." In particular, check out the interesting, and somewhat unusual chapter on "The Poem and Rhyme," which deals with messianic time and verse.
May 15, 2020
I remember reading stories of how the Dadaists would cut up snippets of newspaper and reassemble them, or how Surrealists would free associate poetry. Yeah, this book is just like that, but done by someone who should know better. I read this book twice, and what I did the first read with Agamben’s work, I feel confident in my projection that he did something very similar with Paul’s Letter: read himself into an obscure work and didn’t keep himself in check.
March 30, 2008
There are few books so stimulating and paradigmatic that I read over as soon as I've finished thie first go-through, but this is one of them. Agamben's take on Paul and the Epistle to the Romans is astoundingly deep and close and very fresh. Outstanding on the Jewish Christianity (the only true or actual Judeo-Christianity in history) of the New Testament period.
February 26, 2016
Very interesting look at Paul. Not really a commentary on Romans, but framed as a commentary on the first few words of Romans. Examines messianic time in the context of both Jewish Law and the works of Walter Benjamin (with whom I confess I am not familiar). This look at Paul's works from outside of a Christian framework is very helpful in opening up different perspectives on Paul's thought.
July 14, 2016
2nd Conference for Lent at Notre Dame with Père Eric Morin. Very interesting on my second reading July 2016.
February 10, 2015
The connection between St Paul and Hegel 's Aufhebung is interesting but whats the conclusion? I think I missed something at the end....
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews