You meant to say “agree” so I fixed that for you. 
Heck, even other radical Jesus Myth proponents (up to and including the nearly insane theories of the popular anti-Christian apologist Acherya S) think this guy is so hugely wrong he’s going to give Jesus Myth theories generally a bad name. 
(Or rather a worse name, since hardly any scholars even among the super-sceptical ones follow any theory that Jesus didn’t exist.)
He tried this back in 2005, and was not even worth refuting; updated it in 2011, not even worth refuting. Now he’s putting out a sequel. Well, hey, if he wants practically every scholar of every ideology everywhere to jump on him that badly, maybe he’ll get his wish this time – people seem to be paying more attention because the sensationalism itself is news. 
No doubt he’s willing to trade in whatever remaining scholarly credit he has for the brief monetary influx from people buying his book, but it needlessly upsets people.
Even if I was a complete atheist, I would still believe on the evidence that Jesus existed, went around making claims of some kind of divinity that his followers promoted afterward (I’d say even claims of ultimate divinity), got handed over to the Romans by the Jewish religious authorities on trumped up charges, was executed on Pilate’s authority for political expediency reasons, was crucified to death, buried on the sundown right before the sabbath in a tomb with Temple Levite guards to protect against stealing the body (yet otherwise somehow outside the direct power of the Sanhedrin to secure the body better), and then the body went missing anyway, after which the guards were first told as a panicked first response by the Sanhedrin to incriminate themselves as having fallen asleep so the disciples could steal the body, after which the Sanhedrin quietly dropped that weak story but then were stuck with not lending their authoritative weight to another explanation without decisively recovering the body which they never did, although they did assign a young hotshot rabbi, disciple of Gamaliel, to find out what happened to the body – who then after a couple of years of prosecuting the people claiming the body was resurrected, completely turned around under mysterious circumstances and started claiming he himself had met the bodily risen Jesus, becoming an ardent follower and apologist for the cause he had originally persecuted.
As an atheist I might be stuck trying to account for the disappearance of the body (though I might suspect some disciples somewhere had something to do with it, even if not the major apostles), and I might be stuck trying to account for the reported subsequent appearances of that body, but I’ve studied the situation enough to know that even a rank atheist can reasonably accept very much of the Gospel and Acts accounts as historical.
(In fact I make it a self-critical practice to approach matters for apologetics as a reasonable atheist, since that’s probably the extreme feasible opponent. Unreasonable atheists, or unreasonable anyones, aren’t going to seriously consider a reasonable argument until they change their attitude or have it changed for them, so there’s no point for me looking at it from that perspective, although I still do sometimes just for the practice. )
