ABSTRACT
Deconstruction intends to denounce an important fact: whether as a divine or a natural book, as a natural or spiritual inscription, ‘writing’ had always been subject to the willingness of its interpreters and truth had always been a question of good hermeneutics. Deconstruction argues that this has come to an end. Accordingly, I distinguish deconstruction from ‘Paulinism’—here regarded as a specific hermeneutical attitude that privileges ‘spiritual’ notions over ‘carnal’ ones—and I assume that deconstruction is a valid alternative to Scholem’s, Benjamin’s, and Agamben’s understanding of law.
