First I'll just say that I've only read about half way through the book. Maybe the second half was better, but you'll have to take that chance. When writing about such a controversial topic, I'd expect the author to fill the book with historical evidence of his postulates. The Prophets give a brief introduction to some of the sources they draw from, but from there they seem to expect you to take on faith every word they say. I expected a rather intellectual reading describing interesting findings on a topic that should be nothing but interesting. Instead, I went through every ambiguous sentence trying to pull the personal thoughts of the authors from the historical evidence they claim to have. There's no definite doctrine, it's just filled with vague ideas. If anyone wants to refute my argument, I'd be happy to hear it. I'd like a fresh view on this book.