Abstract
This paper begins with a fairly obvious comparison of two texts. My hope, however, is that out of this comparison a supplement will emerge-an excrescence that is contained by neither and that exposes the limits of both. The texts under consideration are 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. These two works have taken center stage in a recent, and until recently largely unpredictable, Pauline revival among social and legal theorists. Neither author makes any claim to being a Paul expert, and neither, it should be made clear at the outset, do I. I am an interested amateur at best; but what I take from Badiou and Agamben is less a new erudition with respect to Biblical exegesis, than a new-sometimes exhilarating, sometimes perplexing-effort to think through the problem of "political theology."
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 279-292 |
Number of pages | 14 |
Journal | Seattle University. Law Review |
Volume | 32 |
Issue number | 2 |
Publication status | Published - 2009 |
Keywords
- Bible. N.T. Epistles of Paul
- political theology