@Susan I think through some unconscious empathic response, I'm developing schizophrenia just watching your identicon change over these last few weeks :-).

@ScottS I like letters.

Didn't mean to precipitate psychiatric pathology though....

@Susan The real problem is I just do not know who you are anymore... :-) I can't keep up, you are changing so fast.

@Dɑvïd I edited the question

I believe that should squarely place it in the realm of BH.SE. Hopefully people will reverse their close votes.

^ ^ ^ Okay, so now I'm looking for reopen votes on this, since a final 5th vote was cast to close even after my edit. I'm not sure what more needs to be made clear, as it is clear to me.

@ScottS There's no doubt in my mind that your edits significantly improved the question, Scott. I'm still not sure what would constitute an answer. Do you have something in mind?

Sanders, Dunn, and Wright each sift the evidence in different ways to construct the context they believe most [faithfully|accurately] displays Paul's thought. Is OP looking for traces of that evidence? or for some other "intepreter" from antiquity? Then who? Augustine? Or the sort of thing in Maurice Wiles's The Divine Apostle: The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistles in the Early Church (Amazon has "Look inside").

I'll happily support your re-open if you can show me a future for the question, though - still opaque to me!

In light of the NonTheologian's first stab in the comments relating to the epistle of James, this conclusion from Wiles is interesting:

@Dɑvïd I do not see the question as "looking for traces of that evidence" regarding the "context" reconstruction, but rather about the conclusions of where NPP proponents come to in reading Paul regarding the law (since obviously the law is the OP's focus). Perhaps more clarity is needed, since even non-NPP proponents would often say that law refers to the Mosaic-covenant in most cases in Paul.

Rather, part of the issue between NPP and others is the NPP idea of covenant nomism (lawful works keep one in the covenant) and more specifically the boundary markers of circumcision, Sabbath, and dietary laws relation to that as being what Paul meant by "works of the law."

So I will take a stab at tweaking the wording again.

... When I get a chance. Do you think that will clarify things?