I suppose what bothers me about this is the suggestion that today's Protestants check their attitude towards 1^st century Judaism but not their take on medieval Catholicism.

"What Did Paul Really Mean?", Christianity Today, 8/10/07:

In the old perspective, works of the law are human acts of righteousness performed in order to gain credit before God. In the new perspective, works of the law are elements of Jewish law that accentuate Jewish privilege and mark out Israel from other nations.

... actually more a new perspective on Judaism than on Paul.

... reacts against the traditional idea that Jews in Paul's day believed they could accumulate merit before God by their deeds. In place of seeing Paul's contemporaries as legalistic, the new perspective says the concern in early Judaism was to maintain the identity of the Jewish nation

The author goes on to say that strands of 1^st century Judaism had legalistic tendencies but these were in the minority.

Hmm, Judaism was no more monolithic then than today. Remarkable ...

But something else:

Why is it, whenever the Book of Galatians is mentioned, the confrontation between Paul and Peter is brought out? Are we still fighting the Reformation through the biblical personalities, still projecting our own antagonism upon the apostles?

The author warns against this:

But we must not read Paul merely with our favorite debate from church history in mind.

There can be no place in the church for cheap caricatures of ...

Fill-in-the-blank.

Too often I hear Christians disparage the law, so I am encouraged that the author says this:

But we must not criticize the law itself, as if it were a body of petty rules and regulations. To do so would be to criticize God himself. His law is "holy, righteous, and good" (Rom. 7:12).

Say anything flattering about God's Law among Christians and they brand you a legalist. Studying the Talmud has likely given me a subtle appreciation.