I don't understand why the lack of archeological evidence of the existence of one specific man and his great-grandchildren disturbs/exhilirates scientists so, to the point that they assume he must not have existed.
And I only read the front flap, but why is it that if, at most, a few hundred people over several centuries were monotheists, that the "lack of evidence" for the existence of monotheism means it didn't exist? Give me a break.
It's in a very thorough book that is more than a book. And no other book written at the same time refutes it. That's what the rationalist in me says.
The person of faith in me, though, knows that once you believe in G-d/a Supreme Force, then anything is possible.