When you get to his arguments you can't just help but laugh. They are either extremely shallow or they are just so forced. Either way, the conclusions he draws are most definitely necessitated by the evidence.
- He argues that Tacitus is an interpolation from two mutually exlusive platforms. Firstly, he states that it is skilfully interpolated to mimic Tactius as it is (1) powerful and (2) short. However, his next argument that it is an interpolation would mean that the section itself was not an interpolation. He claims that the interpolation into Tacitus previously said Chrestianos instead of Christianos and was later changed. So we are meant to believe that the interpolation was originally flawed and someone had to re-do it? All without anyone else noticing...?
- Jesus doesn't exist because we don't have the autographs of the New Testament. He then goes on to claim that because we don't have much early evidence of the NT Gospels (which he is completely wrong about - we have both manuscripts and citations from the 2nd century) means that he didn't exist. Really, this makes no sense. We have no originals of any ancient history.
- He argues that the gospels arose late whereas we actually know the four-fold tradition was early, etc.