Thanks to Mark for this link:N.T. WRIGHT ON JUSTIFICATION. A few poorly thought out points from me (if you haven't read Wright and don't feel like reading the linked article just bail out now).

First, Hill seems to do Wright injustice regarding the definition of justification. Wright clearly says (somewhere) that justification is a judicial declaration by God. Obviously, Wright feels that the justification talked about by Paul declares those who believe in Jesus to be members in good standing of the true people of God. Undoubtedly Hill's thoughts and Wright's thoughts on justification are not completely identical, but I think they are much closer than Hill thinks they are.

Second, Hill doesn't say enough about historical context to justify criticism of Wright in that regard. Since my knowledge of first century historical context is extremely poor, I'll say no more.

Third, and lastly for me here, is that Hill seems to want to draw a sharp distiction between "righteousness before God" and "covenant membership". Without dwelling on the subject, it seems to me at least that Wright and many others don't see that distinction so sharply. I'll leave exposition of covenant membership to the more qualified.

I will certainly agree with Hill that Wright probably needs to make more explicit where he does and does not differ with the mainstream of protestant theology. Most of the criticisms of Wright I've seen deal more with what he doesn't say, e.g. the second coming, than what he does say.