Rating: 
Summary: Factual Errors, Problems with Interpretation and Reasoning
Review: I appreciated the background Miles provides for the people groups around Israel and the explanation of some of their religious categories. This information facilitates comparison between the religion of Israel and the gods of surrounding peoples. The concepts of the sky god, the warrior god, and the personal god held by these nations are new to me (though they seem somewhat similar to concepts in other polytheistic systems).
On the other hand, I can't help noticing some problems in the book. The book has several factual errors, and some problems in interpretation and in reasoning, I believe. I'll list a few examples from each of the three categories.
Factual Errors:
1. Concerning God's foreknowledge. On page 91 Miles asserts that God did not foresee the Israelites becoming enslaved in Egypt. However, this claim ignores and is contradicted by Genesis 15:13 and following: "Then the Lord said to [Abram], `Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own [referring to Egypt], and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years. . . .'" To make the claim above, Miles must believe a priori, before studying the text of Genesis and Exodus, that the God in the bible does not know the future at all. Only then can he ignore what the text says. Ignoring the text in such a way indicates bias and undermines his ability to correctly or adequately interpret the text. (Unless, possibly, Miles believes he has some good reason for thinking that that Genesis passage and others are later additions, or invalid for some other reason. If that is the case, however, it is Miles' responsibility to show his reasoning.)
2. Concerning God's motives and character. On page 108 Miles claims God is totally capricious in his treatment of the people of Canaan. More specifically, he says "their intentions, good or bad, have no bearing on the matter," i.e. on their being destroyed, conquered, or displaced. Again, this contradicts the biblical text. Speaking to Abram, God says, "In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here [to Canaan], for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure" (Gen. 15:16). Miles uses interpretations like that on page 108 to say that God is ruthless, volatile, unjust, and immoral. Actually, the intentions displayed in the quote from Genesis show God's patience, forbearance, foreknowledge, and precise planning.
3. Concerning God's motives and character. On page 164 Miles claims one of the reasons God removes Saul as king is that he showed the Kenites mercy. Nowhere does it say or suggest that this was a reason for punishing Saul. The reasons are given in I Samuel 15:17-23.
4. Concerning King David's relationship and attitude toward God and implying a negative evaluation of the character of God. On page 165 Miles claims David is "fighting against God by fighting for the Philistines against Israel. David spent years [actually it was a year and four months (see I Sam. 27:7)] as the leader of a gang of bandits loyal to the Philistine Achish of Gath, who marveled at the savagery of David's raids against his own people . . ."
Again, this statement is factually wrong. David was not fighting against his own people, and he was not fighting against God. He only told the Philistine king that he was fighting against Israelite villages (even though he wasn't) so that Achish would believe he was loyal to him. The text says, "Now David and his men went up and raided the Geshurites, the Girzites and the Amalekites. . . . When Achish asked, `Where did you go raiding today?' David would say, `Against the Negev of Judah' [which was part of Israel] or `Against the Negev of Jerahmeel' or `Against the Negev of the Kenites.'" (I Sam. 27:8-10)
Interpretation Problems:
1. Miles questions God's wisdom, and suggests he has a tendency to make mistakes and change his mind. On page 29 Miles argues that by the end of the first chapter of Genesis God feels regret about creating humans. That conclusion is not credible I think. The text explicitly says immediately after the creation of humans, "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good" (Gen. 1:31) Notice that this is the first time the creation is said to be very good. Contrary to Miles' interpretation, the text suggests that humanity is the pinnacle of God's creation, and that God was very pleased by his creation. More text is devoted to the sixth day (on which humans were created) than to any other day, reinforcing the idea that humans are the climax of creation.
2. Miles argues that creation is inadequate; God failed in creation. On pages 30-31 Miles writes, "something is wrong with the man, and of the flaw the Lord God can only say: `It is not good for man to be alone; I will make a fitting helper for him' But all the Lord God's efforts to come up with an adequate helper fail. He brings to the man `all the wild beasts and all the birds of the sky,' an extraordinary parade . . . but `no fitting helper [is] found.' By clear implication, the man rejects the whole of God's labors in creating other living creatures: They may be `good,' but they are not good for him."
Miles' attempt at interpretation here is lacking. God says, "I will make a fitting helper for him" (Gen. 2:18). Clearly, God is not planning to force on the man some animal already created. He intends to create something new, specifically compatible with the man. God parades the animals in front of the man because, for one reason, he wants the man to see that it is not good for him to be alone-that he needs and wants a woman-before fulfilling the man's desire. This dynamic, interactive relationship between God and people is found throughout the Bible. God seems to want people to perceive their own needs and desires so that they can exercise their will to ask for those things and so that God can respond by satisfying them.
3. Questioning God's moral knowledge and justice. Miles claims God did not know that murder was wrong until after Cain murdered Abel. On page 41, Miles writes, "After the murder, when he says to Cain, `Hark, your brother's blood cries out to Me from the ground!' it is as if he has at that moment discovered that murder merits condemnation. . . . Something is wrong, but does the Lord yet quite know what it is? The Lord acts [punishes Cain] and then infers his own intention from what he has done."
Such an interpretation neglects the text, inserting ideas that are not present. God cautioned Cain before the murder, "sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it" (Gen. 4:7). God is aware of Cain's anger and anticipates the murder. God is not stupid or ignorant; he knows that murder is wrong, calling it (or that from which it results, if readers want to be really cautious) sin.
Reasoning Problems:
1. Regarding fertility. Beginning on page 47, Miles argues that God initially gave mankind "dominion" over their own fertility, but that when God promised to make Abram a great nation he removed the dominion of mankind over fertility reducing people's fertility in general (or "humanity's overall reproductive autonomy" [48]) while reserving special fertility for Abram. According to Miles, this attempt to withdraw dominion over fertility leads to "an ongoing struggle with mankind over control of human fertility" (47). At least three points about God follow: (1) God is slow to comprehend his own desires concerning human reproduction and his relationship with humans; (2) God is changeable and fickle; (3) God's motives in relating to humans are mixed with distasteful elements such as stinginess, insecurity, fear, and childishness.
However, every point in this line of argument is completely unsupported. The first problem with Miles' reasoning is that the bible never says or suggests that God gave people dominion over fertility. What God did say is found in Genesis 1:26-29. "They shall rule [or have dominion over] the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the cattle, the whole earth, and all the creeping things that creep on earth," and he directed them to "be fertile and increase, fill the earth and master it; and rule [or have dominion over] the fish of the sea, and the birds of the sky, and all the living things that creep on earth." Nowhere does it say that humanity had control over fertility. Regarding fertility, God simply tells the humans he wants them to reproduce and fill the earth and subdue it, in a way extending the theme of creation. Miles' assertion that the bible says mankind "'ha[s] dominion over' his own fertility" is incorrect; he apparently pulls this idea out of thin air (47).
A second problem with Miles' reasoning here is that he claims God removed humanity's control over fertility because he feared "unchecked multiplication of humans" (47). Since God had specifically commanded humans to be fertile and increase and fill the earth, this reason seems unlikely.
Miles tries to interpret Abraham's conduct so that it is consistent with his view of human control over fertility. But his interpretation doesn't work very well. Here is one example. When Abraham (or Abram at this point in time) traveled to Egypt to escape a famine he tells his wife Sarai to say that she is his sister. (Miles goes on to say that Abram told Sarai "to join Pharaoh's household as a concubine" (49). This was added by Miles; it is not in the text. See Genesis 12:10-20.) Subsequently, Pharaoh took Sarai as a wife. Miles claims Abram pretended Sarai was his sister because he "does not want fertility on the terms offered and attempts to give it away" (49). Miles is really reaching here. A more reasonable and obvious explanation is given in the text:
"As he was about to enter Egypt, he said to his wife Sarai, `I know what a beautiful woman you are. When the Egyptians see you, they will say, "This is his wife." Then they will kill me but will let you live. Say you are my sister, so that I will be treated well for your sake and my life will be spared because of you'" (Genesis 12:11-13).
Contrary to Miles' interpretation, then, God did not reduce humanity's fertility. God's promise to Abraham was not a negative act but a positive act. He promised Abraham special blessing and provision: he promised to bless him, to make him into a great nation, and to cause him to be a blessing to others (Genesis 12:2-3). For a seventy-five year old childless man in his culture this would have been extraordinarily good and welcome news. Abraham's difficulty was not resisting an unwelcome promise, but believing an almost unbelievably good promise. This unexpected promise of blessing becomes a motif in Genesis, and indeed a theme throughout the bible, revealing God's generosity and goodness.
2. Evolution of God. Miles' book is not exactly biography or literary criticism. What I mean is that he doesn't treat God as a real being or as a literary character. Nor is he satisfied with trying to establish how and when other cultures influenced the Hebrew view of God over time. Miles wants to construct a unified character of God. But as I said, his approach is problematic.
First of all, it is problematic because Miles seems to think that God only came into existence immediately prior to the creation; he apparently believes that God's character was entirely unformed before the narrative begins with the creation and that it only developed through interaction with humans.
The second conceptual problem is that Miles thinks whenever a new character trait of God is revealed in the narrative/history/biography that trait marks a change in God's character. One's character cannot be revealed all at once. No one approaches biography or literary criticism or a person or a character in this way. But for some reason Miles chooses to. This approach doesn't make sense unless one wants a priori (consciously or subconsciously) to see God as changing, fickle, limited, and lacking in knowledge and self knowledge.
Conclusion:
Ultimately, for all the reasons mentioned, Miles' treatment of God is unreasonable and unfair. Thoughtful readers would do well to go back and study the bible itself. I imagine part of the problem with a book like this is that readers often tend to skip over the extended quotations. But careful reading of the extended quotations is vital for accurate understanding.
I appreciate the issues Miles raises and the fact that he asks many questions, some of them hard. I like to question things in this way too, including the bible. But I think the bible and the character of God withstand the criticism implicit in Miles' book.
Rating: 
Summary: At last, this book...
Review: A note: I read this book in a Hebrew translation, which seemed the most appropriate for a book dealing solely with the Tanakh (Bible) issues.
For some years I was seeking for a book that dares to look into human-like aspects of God's character and so far this book is the only one. The Miles's book is not an easy or fast reading: typically a striking , essential thought is expressed in a line or two after some long introductionary passages and one should take care not to miss that couple of lines.
The book is not debunking religion (like Ingersoll's writings) but rather presents and analyzes God's documented deeds and possible motives without any mystical assumptions.
Actually, the book even tempts to reader to think: What would I do, were me Him?
The book does not answer the ultimative question: "Why does the evil exist?" but it's approach is different. If you ask a believer: "Why does God allow evil deeds?" - he would say: "It's about freedom of choice". The books, on the other hands, leads you to think: "It's because the definition of evil is progressive in time and not known a priori".
All in all, the Miles's book is very enlightening.
Rating:
Summary: God or aliens?
Review: If I were to have asked a serious investigative reporter to read all the books alleging that God was an alien and ask the investigator to critically analyze the Bible for any supporting evidence, this is the book that would have resulted. The tact of approaching the project as a critical literary review and analysis was brilliant on the part of the author - otherwise it would have never received serious reading.
There are only two conclusions any serious seeker of the truth can come to after reading this book. The first is that God and the Lord (the author provides convincing analysis that they were two distinct entities), were indeed advanced alien visitors per author Zecharia Sitchin and others. The other option is that God is not perfect, all knowing, etc., and that we are His "sensory organs" for learning about the universe (i.e., His tools for self-awareness and self-knowledge). Hence, if this is true He is on a journey of self-discovery through us and therefore no better than us.
Either conclusion shakes the foundations of organized religion. Only read this book if you are prepared to have your core beliefs challenged.
Rating: 
Summary: Who judges whom?
Review: If you are a christian your first reaction upon looking at this book might be to shudder and shy away. Yet another attempt to deconstruct God and reinterpret Him for our day and age you might say. Yes, there is a certain amount of that, but it is important for christians to be able to engage with this kind of exegesis too. Even a very flawed interpretation can yield new insights, and Miles' work certainly provides new depth and context in many ways. He definitely brings linguistic and socio-cultural historiographic strengths to the work, and he conducts an important exercise in breaking down the different images of God as seen through the eyes of the different authors of the Hebrew Bible.His political history is a little weak, and I think he would agree with that statement based on his disclaimers at the front of the book. The other frustrating thing about his work is that it is incomplete -- the literary biography of God has to be coupled with the literary biography of the Jewish people -- they are an extremely important "character" in the Bible, and the character of God that Miles describes is really the character of God as seen through the eyes of the Jewish people. In other words, this really should have been more of a three part discussion -- (1) the character of God, (2) the character of the Jewish people, and (3) how their character shaped their view of God and their relationship to Him. It's not so much that the narrator or narrative is fallible, as that the story of God is incomplete and incompletely understood. Given these constraints, Miles narrative is one of extremes. At some levels, it provides an extreme close-up view -- delving into the religious practices of the Israelites' neighbors, or discussing the multiple meanings of a given Hebrew word and its various alternatives. At other times, it provides broad brush strokes and makes gross assertions (ie God's stance towards sex) that aren't as substantiated as they could be. These are all qualities of an interesting and provocative study -- the reader will definitely be stimulated, but also show why Miles is not compelling in the end, and oddly, at least from my perspective, a little superficial. A book like Miles' God is a challenge to christians and non-christians alike, and worth the investment of time to read it, but if you are engaging in a study of God, it would be well worth it to return to the primary source again afterwards.
Rating: 
Summary: An interesting idea, poorly executed.
Review: The author's stated purpose with this book is to write a literary biography of the character 'God' in the Jewish Tanakh (Christian Old Testament). As I said, an interesting idea. It removes the strain of belief or acceptance from a study of the character of God. Rather than getting hung up on issues like, "I can't believe a <insert trait here> God would <insert action here>!", Jack Miles proposes that we look at how this piece of literature presents its main character, God. Unfortunately, the author hangs his interpretation of the character, God, on a some very weak assumptions. For instance, because we are not told of God's story prior to his creation of the heavens and the earth in Genesis, Mr. Miles assumes that God has no history. In his mind, God begins as this powerful creative sentient force with no real knowledge of itself. The story of the Tanakh is read as God forging a series of relationships with people (as individuals and in groups), the failure of which seem to reveal to God some aspect of himself that he had not known before. However, the author seems to entirely miss the possibility that what we see is not God's discovery of himself through his relationships with men, but rather a mosaic (no pun intended) picture of God presented through the perspectives and experiences of a variety of authors. Honestly, the gross assumptions which constitute the spine of this book have really undermined my respect for the Pulitzer Prize. If I had handed something like this in in school, it would have been given a 'C' at best and there would have been numberous comments of "show support for this statement" and "show evidence for this explaination of motive".
Rating:
Summary: Unquestionably worth the effort
Review: Jack Miles achieved his stated intent to write a biography of the character God based on the Tanakh, a literary work. The result is a fascinating study of the evolution of the Judean notion of a monotheistic God, the linchpin for the Jewish, Christian and Muslin religions. Some reviews here either entirely shun Miles work or nit-pick at one of his arguments with certain shrillness, as if Miles had stepped on sacred toes. Unless you can accept, at least temporarily, that man created God and not the other way around, you are liable to suffer a similar upset. Miles is a scholar. He has devoted his life to the study of religion, literature and language, and his writing is rich with insightful analogies. This is not an easy read, however. I had to look up more words while reading this work than with any other book in memory, and some required delving into the cognate, but it was unquestionably worth the effort.
Rating:
Summary: Scholarly with room for belief
Review: This was probably the most helpful book I've read on the Old Testament. I mean "helpful" because Miles has used comparative religion in this explication of the Old Testament and its main "character" God. While revealing how the character God has evolved over the millenia, Miles really shows how we as people have evolved and how our understanding of God has changed along with our spiritual and religious growth. I did not consider myself religiously naive, but I was surprised at some of what I encountered. I recommend this book to anyone interested in the history of the Jewish-Christian-Muslim God's origins--especially those whose faith relies on literalism. This book will give you a great deal of information without stripping you of the foundations of your faith. That's a fine line that Jack Miles has observed very effectively.
|
