Charles Barbour


This paper begins with a comparison of two texts: Alain Badiou's Saint Paul: The Foundation of Universalism and Giorgio Agamben's The Time that Remains: A Commentary on the Letter to the Romans. In Parts III and IV, I will summarize in very broad terms the details of Badiou's and Agamben's respective appropriations of Paul. Within each of these Parts, I will speak a little bit about the implications of these various claims for contemporary legal theory-- at least as I understand it, and I am no expert. Finally, in Part V, I will discuss briefly an alternative reading of Paul, one provided by Hannah Arendt, which, while far less fashionable, might have something important to contribute to this conversation.