As one reviewer commented, the book reads like a tabloid. It seems as though the authors are trying to make their research shocking by overwhelming use of exclamation points. In my opinion, it makes it seem less credible. The book is confused and hectic. The sections within each chapter are roughly a page long each, hardly enough for a detailed analysis of the points they are trying to make. Although for a lot of it, a detailed analysis would show that the authors have blatantly disregarded pertinent evidence that disproves many of their assertions. And somehow, they have managed to insert a quote from Celsus on almost every page, even though his original composition is completely lost. It's amazing that they use a "Pagan scholar" who is writing after Christianity to disprove a historical Jesus! Give me something besides misunderstood Plato quotes that predates Christianity. You can't use post facto observations to prove something, especially when the source is incredibly untrustworthy. It's like saying that Eusebius wrote a perfectly accurate, unbiased biography of Constantine the Great. NO!
The writing style is unfocused and irritating. There are hundreds of footnotes for each chapter, which makes it seem like it's well researched. It's certainly extensively researched, but the research is misguided. The book is useful as a compendium of quotations from the time of Jesus, but to use any of it as proof that Jesus never existed is an enormous leap of faith, if you'll pardon the pun.