Unlike Freud’s apostle in Moses and Monotheism, Nietzsche’s Paul was himself not already split, ambivalent, or stranded within effective history in a way that signals the potential for a real transvaluation of the value or function of the figure in question. Nietzsche therefore seems to me not to do with Paul what he obviously knew one must do in relation to modern Europe’s Platonism for the masses, namely, to submit it to a properly genealogical critique. Instead Nietzsche reifies Paul, leaving his place in the archive of Western ontotheology unscathed, forcing the philosopher only to disavow, rather than to transform, the effective Pauline legacy