Rating: 
Summary: Man does not want to define God
Review: Augustine said: "We know only what God is not." Strange then that a human could write His biography!God is not; but its not-being is universally present, and universally affects. It cannot eXist in any sense meaningful to material organisms; but that does not mean that this situation is meaningless to such organisms. If, for instance, you see two men fighting, but do not intervene (although you could have intervened), then in fact you intervene by not intervening; and it is so with God. The whole is intrinsically a situation in which the principles and the events are all, and the individual thing is nothing. Since it is thus completely indifferent to the individual thing. God must be totally sympathetic to the whole. But it eXpresses its sympathy by not being and by its total 'unknowability'. Miles seems to perceive the quandary, and writes on, regardless. If the individual thing suffers, it is so that the whole may not. This can happen only in a world of individualized matter, in which hazard, time and change are fundamental features. To write about God and attempting to describe His import in the history of Man, is to acknowledge this statement. Miles at times falters, switching too easily to historiography to find support in a task that is, by itself, inhuman. Man cannot define God, because Man has chosen thus: Man does not want to define God, because otherwise God will no longer be God, the God Man made Him to be: unknowable. EXistence is ultimately or potentially knowable; God is infinitely unknowable. The most we shall ever learn is why eXistence is as it is; why it requires such laws and such constituents to continue. We shall never learn ultimately why it is. While Miles prepares the platform, we'll leave the why to God.
Rating: 
Summary: Sloppy reading
Review: Two reviewers demonstrate poor reading habits. With reference to the name of Moses' father, the author on p.97 does NOT say that the name is absent from the Bible. In fact Miles notes its appearance in Exodus 6:20. The whole point is the reference to the father at this crucial point in the narrative deliberately without name and as "a certain man of the house of Levi" and what this implies. The book is a beautiful demonstration of close reading.
Rating:
Summary: A different way of looking at God
Review: I could see how this book might be offensive to people who have set religious persuasions. First of all, the character illustrated in this book is not the God we (or least me) were taught about in Sunday school. God, in this book, is a sporadic combination of peaceful parent and ruthless disciplinary. He's inconsistent in his laws and confused about his relationship with man. Some of the details that Jack points out about God in this book are endearing, shocking and in some cases appalling. Is this book meant to slap God in the face? Is it meant to turn the bible upside down - as well as the beliefs of all it's readers? I don't think so. Anybody with a knowledge of history must acknowledge that the bible we read today has passed through so many hands that the remnants are bastardized philosophies and attempts at Man to make God into "His God." Much of the language used by God, and his actions described in this book are obviously the result of artistic liberties taken by some pretty bold authors. My feeling is that Jack is not trying to slam God...but slam his creators. If nothing else, read this book for it's different perspective. Question it - but look for answers to your questions. This book is not an end-all answer...it's just another miniscule step towards our desire to know about the main character in all of our lives.
Rating: 
Summary: Unworthy of serious consideration.
Review: Jack Miles' god comes across as nothing more than a young, impetuous wizard, coming of age in a world he does not control. Indeed, his god is little more than a glorified, often malicious, and always unpredictable Harry Potter. It is unfortunate that one who has such admirable educational qualifications should write such utter nonsense. Miles ignores centuries of biblical scholarship and tradition. This book is poorly conceived and poorly written.
Rating: 
Summary: Uninteresting
Review: I'm not entirely sure why this book has received such aclaim. Miles's commentary is uninteresting and he doesn't contribute any profound insights. His interesting points are few and far between and he manages to say very little about each topic he covers. I applaud him in his effort -- the idea behind the book is a good one. Miles is just unable to really pull it off.
Rating:
Summary: God: A Biography
Review: Jack Miles has created a vivid and accessible analysis of the Tanakh (or Old Testament) that neither over-spiritualizes, nor does irreverence to, his subject - God. His treatment of the Bible as a work of art created by the hands of humans in response to history and their relationship with their deity is exquisite. It's not a quick read, but one that can truly be savored.
Rating:
Summary: A truly objective look at the being known as God
Review: I am still in the process of reading this book, but have found it to be the most objective look at the litarary character of God as presented in the Old Testament. The emphasis is not placed on the dogmatic character of God as accepted by most Christians, but instead focuses on the character of God strictly based upon his actions in the Bible. The book follows the evolution of God, as though he was any other litarary character. Very informative approach. You will never look at the Old Testament the same again
Rating:
Summary: Analytical flaws in "God: A Biography"
Review: Here's the bottom line: The book presents a creative concept-- that is, looking at the Hebrew Bible and discussing the character 'God' as a 'literary' character. This means that the book-according to its own argument-should not have any allusions to the 'spiritual' or 'religious' God of those who believe in the Hebrew Bible (or the Old Testament, which contains the identical set of stories, but in a different order). However, this line is crossed quite frequently. The assumptions of the book are flawed, and the author fails to stick to them. The same can be said of his methodology, which is often internally inconsistent-these and other rather overt lapses of logic (or leaving out alternative interpretations) render most of the books conclusions moot. The fact that the book is portrayed as a work of 'literary scholarship', and won a 'Pulitzer Prize', has, I must say, been the motivation for writing a critique of this book. The book often fails on a literary level, and so the reader must take care in reading its claims and conclusion. I also wonder how closely the Pulitzer committee checked this work. I actually wouldn't recommend this book, because it is too fraught with errors-on a literary level, but also on the religious and spiritual level of God. The author makes statements that clearly refer to our concept of God on a religious level, while trying to shield his attacks and criticism behind the cloak of a "literary examination." The book is useful as a tool, I guess, to point out many flaws in interpretation analysis. The problem lies in the fact that most readers don't have the time to do a close analytical reading of the text, and so may, in the interest of time, read too quickly, and assume the author is actually 'proving' what he says. But that's just the human instinct to trust, I think-when in fact, a close examination of the assumptions, methodologies, and conclusions will show errors in each part, as well as deficiencies in logic while connecting the three. Examples: giving statements as if proven, without any evidence, and then repeating these statements later on, as if they had been 'proven' earlier. Quoting the Old Testament when it supports his interpretation of the stories in the Hebrew Bible, but not when it counters his interpretation-also, he uses his OWN translation at times (which would seem to immediately contradict the claim to be doing a literary analysis of the Hebrew Bible). Reasoning patterns he argues for early in the book are not adhered to, or blatantly contradicted later on. Also, conclusions taken from the 'evidence' offered will often bear no relation to the passage quoted. Also, frequently breaks away from the 'literary' domain the book is supposed to remain in, and deals with religious, spiritual, and historical issues. All in all, the book is rather poor. But as far as investigating a book for its internal shortcomings, it's a pretty good place to start!
Rating:
Summary: Fascinating approach to the reading of the "Old Testament"
Review: This book should be the last in the O.T. and called "Revelations"! God emerges from the reading as (at least) two separate beings - as if in preparation for the New Testament. I must read it again, there was so much detail that I missed by concentrating on the narrative thread. It was hard work reading it but rewarding and informative.
Rating:
Summary: Makes religion personal again.
Review: The brillance of this work lays in its incredible ability to bring the ancient and uncontemplatable Hebrew God to a level that makes Him both personal and understandable. As a faithful Catholic I found many of the presented ideas both challenging and perplexing, but have ultimately derived a deeper understanding of the faith of the ancient Jews and that of my own religion from the beautiful ideas captured in these pages. This book allows the faithful, or the unfaithful who are simply looking to learn more about the Hebrew God, to develop a new and possibly more thorough understanding of who God is and what His relationship with us means. Another treat is that the human characters of the Old Testement jump off the page and gain an identity that I did not feel simply from reading the Old Testement. Whether this work was guided by the Almighty or not will never be known, but I have no doubt that Miles has had a thorough and beautiful vision.
| 
