As far as the autobiographical elements of this go, Rosner does an excellent job and tells her story compellingly. I thought that she did a good job of weaving her story into the exposition of the more non-fiction content as well. This sort of hybrid memoir and nonfiction book is becoming quite a popular genre, but I think Rosner's has worked the best of the books I've read in this vein.
Unfortunately I strongly disagree with Rosner's approach to the biblical and theological issues she discusses. I found her engagement with these issues were often sloppy, unclear, and overburdened with clichés.
For example, she never defined what she meant by the term "Jewish" or "Jewishness." According to Rosner, all of the following people are Jewish: modern Messianic Jews, a modern Orthodox Jew, a reformed Jew, the Mishnaic Rabbis, Jesus, the Pharisees, King David, and modern secular Jews. What exactly do these people all have in common that makes them "Jewish"? What does it mean to say that all these people belong to an abstraction called, "Judaism," while modern Christians who worship Israel's God and put their trust in Israel's Messiah do not? You cannot pretend that there are no important differences between Rabbinic Judaism and the "Judaism" found in the NT or the OT. Most disappointingly, at times it seems that for Rosner "Jewishness" refers to everything that is spiritually good while "Christian" refers to everything that is spiritually deficient. This tendency goes against the very spirit of her work.
Rosner's engagement with history was one of the most frustrating parts of the book. She makes wildly oversimplistic claims that made me want to pull my hair out, such as the idea that Constantine is responsible for the parting of the ways. I don't know what it's going to take for popular level writers to stop blaming everything they don't like about modern Christianity on Constantine. The claims are frankly absurd. Personally, I found her claims about Martin Luther to be the most ignorant and insulting. For example, she pretends as if the pamphlet "On the Jews and their Lies" is Luther's magnum opus and his most influential work. Even if you want to talk about Luther's attitude toward the Jews, you absolutely cannot only reference this half-baked pamphlet and call it a day. Luther said a great number of complex, contradictory, and even abhorrent things about the Jews during his career. You cannot simply treat him as the great grandfather of Nazism and move on. I can tell that Rosner is smarter than this and I was profoundly disappointed that she repeated these tired old lines without engaging with them critically. I also found her discussion of Luther's commentary on Paul in particular to be frustrating. She evaluates him by the standards of post-enlightenment biblical scholars when Luther was no such thing. You can still think he's wrong, but you cannot judge him by cultural standards of several centuries later and pretend you're engaging in responsible scholarship. If Rosner wants others to treat Jewish figures and thought respectfully, then she should do the same to others.
Finally, when dealing with arguments within biblical studies, Rosner fails to engage with voices which disagree with her favorite perspectives, thus falsely giving the impression that the scholars she cites are without significant opposition. The New Perspective on Paul and the Paul within Judaism schools are one perspective among many even within Paul studies. These are understandably Rosner's favorites, but she never once acted like these scholars have received any significant opposition. This is deceptive and irresponsible.
Ultimately, I'm quite interested in what Rosner is trying to do and am sympathetic to many claims she makes. Unfortunately her work is riddled with too many errors and weaknesses to make the case she wants to make.