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.
Charles Barbour, "Separated Unto the Gospel of God": Political Theology in Badiou and Agamben, 32 SEATTLE U. L. REV. 279 (2008).