Erick, I agree that there is much allure in Wright. However, I must disagree about the consistency of the hermeneutic. By nature, it must be a fluid hermeneutic, constantly changing with the trends of historical analysis. With every new text or new way of reading a text from the second temple Jewish period, the thesis which underlies the reading of the New Testament is forced to change. The question one has to answer before they can read the New Testament is: whose model of Second Temple Judaism do I hold to be true? Sanders? Neusner? Wright? Someone else? To say anything positive of the New Testament requires first an accurate interpretation of another religious system. Now, I will certainly not deny the great added value which can come to our understanding of of the New Testament through study of the relevant Jewish literature (actually, a copy of the Damascus Document and of the Mishnah are open on my desk right now); but, contra Sanders et al, I think we ought to be much more centered on the biblical description of Judaism of Paul's day which is found in scripture itself. For instance: do we, with Sanders, study the relevant material and decide that the Pharisees wouldn't really have had too big of a problem with Jesus doing what he was doing, and thereby modify the biblical accounts? I don't think that's a responsible method. It seems, rather, that scripture itself contains enough material that we can adequately interpret Paul without having a necessary recourse to secondary Jewish literature. Of course, such literature can only be helpful, and grant more insight, but the Qumran community should be consulted for help only after we have received the testimony of the Holy Spirit himself: the author. Instead of assuming that the DSS must contain the key for unlocking the theology of Paul's opponents and therefore the key to Paul and the scriptures themselves, we ought first to interpret scripture, and then in light of this, decide whether and how relevant the DSS are. When reading people like Dunn and Wright, it's easy to overlook the fact that scripture is not an ordinary book or a human composition. It's author is divine, and included within his work the best interpretive key, and continues to abide in his words, speaking them to us as we read it in faith. In the end, I guess all I wanted to say at the start of this horribly long and winding (perhaps irrelevant post), was that I think the Reformed tradition has a much more consistent and credible hermeneutic.