There's a reason that, from academia's perspective, there's a certain amount of question about what Boyarin IS, in terms of discipline, because he's somehow always exceeding the boundaries of what one would think a field is.
It's not a critique, by any means, but it is an invitation to think about his writing as straddling the Talmudic, historical, literary, and confessional.
Which is appealing (you mean you can DO that? Yeah, when you're Daniel Boyarin.)
In terms of content - his reading of edelkayt is deeply compelling, his overall project of constructing historical complexity and archeology of viewpoints is hard not to appreciate even as his consistent pulling back of what the project CAN be often ends up - inevitably and paradoxically - increasing its power.
But it's Boyarin as the figure at the center of the text - responding to his own history and conclusions and the part of Judaism that have shaped him - that pull the whole thing together and create a narrative whole.