Wow. I don't even have a baby yet, and time is already a scarce commodity.
As mentioned by Mark Goodacre, there's an article in the most recent issue of The Lutheran dealing with the New Perspective on Paul.
Mark expresses his hope to offer some comments on the application of 1QS, and 4QMMT has been done to death (and, contra Wright, I think Donfried is right. It is expressing works-righteousness, though Wright is right in that the context affects what's being said such that it's not as contra Paul as it seems). So while I won't touch on either of those, I will note what seems, to me, to be another shortcoming of the article.
Evidence is increasingly mounting that Qumran has nothing to do with the Dead Sea Scrolls. While they may or may not be Essenes, it's becoming quite difficult to equate the texts with the site. While his point holds--whoever wrote the texts was clearly concerned with "purity,"--this can be established textually with ease. Why does he try to establish it from the remains of K. Qumran, an argument that is increasingly tenuous?
Another error, IMO, is the failure to even acknowledge, much less address, the arguments of Fitzmyer than 2Cor.6.14-7.1 is interpolated. To be sure, this suggestion has been challenged (Amador, for an example available online), but if one is going to analogue 2Cor to Qumran, one is loathe to neglect to so much as mention the possibility.