This is going to be just cover a few examples as I do not wish to spend more time than this subject is worth. I read, I thought, I didn't like.
The author is a very well recognized scholar and as such I was prepared to accept his historical facts. I think I do accept them. I have read about zealots in other places as well as the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, and Masada, etc. etc. I doubt very much that the facts are wrong. I cannot stand however, his own opinions, which he freely expounds upon, concerning the New Testament. He takes a piece of text and puts layers and layers of his own theories and ideas over it, and promotes it a historical fact.
He suggests that Jesus was a disciple of John the Baptist, and worse that the 40 days Jesus spent in the wilderness was when Jesus was following John with his other disciples. Whatever the 40 days were or meant, there is NO historical evidence that Jesus first followed John. This is pure, or should I say impure, opinion. There is even no historical evidence that Jesus the man of the New Testament even existed ; so where does this author get off.
He suggests that the Kingdom of God, is a call to arms to overthrow the Romans and that he, Jesus, wanted to be the earthly King of the Jews.
I am sick of it. I do not wish to expound on the unhistorical opinions the author holds anymore. He pisses me off. Read the book if you will but this guy is delusional in his theories and opinions and his hubris.