Nicholas Perrin’s reviews of Guy Waters’ book, Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul: A Review and Response are now available on the N.T. Wright page:—
A Reformed Perspective on the New Perspective
Some Reflections on Hermeneutics and Method
Alastair's Adversaria 
Interesting reading, thanks!
pax et bonum
And here is Waters’ reply to Perrin’s rejoinder:
http://www.reformation21.org/Upcoming_Issues/Perrin_Rejoinder/245/
From the Waters respnse:
BOQ
Perrin asserts in these excerpts that “storied logic” is basic or fundamental to human thought.[viii] He goes so far as to claim that this epistemology is “intuitively true.” His own example, however, does not sustain his claim. In response to Perrin’s question (“why [one] goes to church on Sunday”) one would expect a biblically literate Christian to respond in the following way: “Because the Lord has said ‘Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy…’” He quotes, in other words, the Fourth Commandment. To be sure, such a Christian would remember that this commandment was observed by Adam in the garden (Gen 2) and by Israel in the wilderness (Exod 16); and formally promulgated on Mt. Sinai (Exod 20). He knows that this commandment occupies an important place in the unfolding historical narrative of the Scripture. But he knows this as a rational being who thinks in the fashion that his Maker has created him to think. He thinks fundamentally in terms of propositions
EOQ
So it means NOTHING to Guy that that particular commandment was couched IN THE SCRIPTURE ITSELF to both the story of creation and the story of the exodus delivery???? Apparently the scriptural authors can reason in ways we cannot.
Sorry, meant to include another sentence and a half. Everyone can read it for themselves I suppose. Anyhow, it seems that Guy just doesn’t really understand the whole narrative “thing”. Maybe he hasn’t read Hauerwas?
I’ve written a review of Justification (edited by Mark Husbands & Daniel J Treier)for ‘The Rutherford Journal & Ministry’. I’m not sure if the review’s been published yet. If you haven’t read this book, you may find it interesting.
Lane,
Thanks for the link.
Paul,
Yes, Waters really seems to miss some pretty basic points and makes some rather bizarre claims. I am finding the same thing in Gaffin’s latest book, which I have been reading today. His criticisms of Wright are sometimes really odd.
Charles,
I read the book shortly after it came out. It has some really good stuff in it and is, IMO, one of the better books on the subject around. A number of the essays (even ones I would disagree with) break interesting new ground, rather than just rehearsing stale arguments.