This effort deserves to be commended. However, several positions taken in the document are based on inadequate information, which weakens its force, no matter how sincere the author. While recognizing the sincere concern manifest in the document, other problems lead to reservations about its conclusions. For convenience these may be listed. The document is based upon incomplete and inadequate information.
Superficial conclusions prove inaccurate when subjected to the scrutiny of intensive research.
In general, citations of authority in the document rely on a limited number of publications of a sensational or partisan character. Recognized authorities in the fields of archaeology, ancient religions, ancient architecture, and religious development are missing from the list of citations. Although one may legitimately differ with interpretations made by recognized authorities, it is not reasonable to dismiss the facts they have unearthed or their qualifications to come to conclusions. We must not allow anti-intellectual sentiment to cloud our access to fact. Nor can we rely on sensational books or articles promoting partisan views.