In light of Dunn's paper at Sheffield, one issue has long bothered me about the whole NP debate: are Jewish texts being read with Christianised categories and far too systematically? I mean this on both 'sides' of the debate. Both covenantal nomism and the whole works righteousness thing (as Sanders showed) are really from Christian theology are they not? And are early Jewish texts really that systematic in discussing works, grace etc? Should we be expecting consistency? Dunn mentioned Deut. which is an interesting case for cov nom but can we still say that anything like a consistent working out of works/grace was that widespread? I'm not yet convinced. This would raise the question of 'why Paul'? The obvious answer to this would be that the significant number of gentiles associated with the movement forces Paul's hand. He HAS to discuss such issues and draw on those not-necessarily-systematic traditions of grace and works in Judaism and subsequent Christian theology HAS to systematise such issues. Like whatever.