I reproduce it here as a refutation of that book and of the many fallacious and inaccurate claims contained in it.
My thanks to @dawkinsassange for permission to reproduce it.
Pgs. 38-39 Appeal to Authority fallacy. Answered in this link.
Pgs. 40-41 No contemporary evidence of Apostles (earliest 150 AD)
Pgs. 41-44 Guilt by association fallacy & faulty analogy. The Watergate conspirators were not being promised eternal rewards in heaven. If these martyrs existed, I have no doubt they BELIEVED, which is irrelevant to actual events.
Pgs. 45-46 Appeal to Authority fallacy
Pg. 47 "Strong evidence that the NT written at an early date" not supported in text. Only assertions.
Pg. 48 "Oral tradition not long enough.." Proof? Evidence?
Pgs. 49-51 So there's no originals. Therefore unknown numbers of errors.
Pgs. 52-54 Much of the NT was admitted to be hearsay. The writer of Mark's confusion with Palestinian geography is circumstantial evidence that Mark wasn't there.
Pgs. 54-55 The contradictions between NT writers indicate lies.
Pgs. 55-58 An alternative explanation that doesn't include miracles is that it is all legendary.
Pgs. 58-59 Writers a hundred years after the event don't add a lot to historicity. In fact, there were many contemporary writers who never attested to Jesus.
Pgs. 59-60 Luke doesn't agree with Josephus.
Pg. 60 "One test of a writer is consistency" Agreed. Luke fails.
Pgs. 61-62 The same standard must be set to the Bible as other secular literature. No. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Otherwise it must be treated the same as other ancient records of legends such as Hercules.
Pgs. 62-63 Criterion of embarrassment argument. Limited in application and not proof that the event happened as described. May be used to fit writer's theology.
Pgs. 65-69 I felt the same joy when released from indoctrination.
Pgs. 73-79 Preaching and selling stuff.
Pgs. 81-83 Disagree. Bible is consistent only in it's inconsistency. It shows every indication of being written by ancient superstitious people.
Podcasts by Peter Coote (@cootey59) also dealing with this may be heard here.
Hoax or History? I vote Hoax
[Yet to be added: Josh McDowell's reply.]