Looks like you've finished addressing this topic. Just to add a few comments.
I think most of the assessment of the book in this thread has been right on. This is the first book I've written. Looking back at it now, there is a lot that could be improved about it. I've considered doing a major revision, but now I'm thinking I'll just write a new book with a larger scope that will revisit some of this material but also significantly expand the scope as well. Probably something along the lines of, "Deciphering the Bible Proves Jesus Never Existed".
The book I'm working on now doesn't spend much time on assessing actual biblical works, its primarily concerned with the broader context of religion and prophecy in classical antiquity and the Roman era. In terms of the Jesus movement itself I spend a lot of time discussing material from Qumran and how that sheds light on the origins of Jesus worship, etc.
But as for this book, there is a lot more to be shown about how the Gospel of Mark fits into the context of Pauline and anti-Pauline early Christian writings, and this is why I will probably write a new book instead of just re-writing this book. I think a very valid criticism of this book is that I didn't make enough use of other scholarship in the field. Tom Dykstra said this in his review of the book. This is very true. This book was produced almost entirely from my own reading and analysis of biblical texts, with very little support from other scholars. I see now that this was a big mistake, as I could have made the case presented in this book a lot stronger. But I'll correct that in the new books.
Honestly I'm surprised that this issue is so controversial and not more widely accepted because, IMO, the case is clear and obvious and the evidence is so strong. I'd say that while this book does a decent job of putting forth its case, it's really only about 30% as strong as the case can be. I've left so much out, glossed over so much, didn't realize so much when I wrote the book.
The next version of this, "Deciphering the Bible" is going to be 10X better. I've done so much more research after having published the book. When I published this I thought it was really a very strong case that fully explained most of the material, but now I see I was only scratching the surface. But still, I think the overall thesis of this book is correct, its just not as well laid out and supported as it could be. Also, I think that while the war definitely does play a strong role in the Gospel of Mark, how Mark fits into the overall Pauline landscape is more important. I didn't spend enough time in this book addressing the Pauline community and how Mark fits into the context of all of the other writings of the NT, which I why I'll be expanding the scope in the next version of the book.
Thanks for taking the time to discuss, and any reviews on Amazon (especially in English) are always welcome