Rating: 
Summary: Brilliant, challenging; sure to be a classic
Review: Unlike the "reader" below, I have read Miles' book. I wish to briefly compare it to another best-seller, Karen Armstrong's History of God.
Her's is the better work, but her's is a very different book. Armstrong carefully works through 3,000
years of Jewish, Christian and Muslim belief in God, explaining how each religion sought to answer similar questions, work through similar experiences (God as remote, God as Personal, etc).
Miles' approach is very different. He takes the Jewish Old Testament (ordered, as it is, differently than the Christian Old Testament),
and carefully, methodically recounts and analyses God's many appearances. Where Armstrong is grounded in years of scholarship, Miles' utilizes literary analysis to investigate the difference between each appearance, the different way in which God reacts to Man and Mankind to God.
Miles does not except each reader to agree with him, but the reader who does read Miles' book will find his own beliefs challenged, refreshed, and
yes, maybe even strengthened.
KRH
www.umeais.maine.edu/~hayward
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: The Atrocity of Miles' book
Review: After reading Miles' book I have to come to the conclussion that he is presenting a pathetic God who really didn't know what He was doing when He created the world. Miles shows his blatant ignorance of His word and the revelation of His holy and perfect character. I believe he is neither a student of His word, nor has he ever understood what God's revelation is all about. If he had done so, he would not be so blatantly ignorant in making an idol out of God and present Him with human flaws. Acts 2: 23 emphatically declares that Jesus was delivered by the PREDERTERMINED PLAN AND FOREKNOWLEDGE OF GOD
Jesus is also known as the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world (the book of Revelation 13:8 KJV). Therefore I would not recommend this book to anyone who is looking for the truth. Frances
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: Must read if you'd like to know what makes God tick...
Review: Great explanation for how God, if he/her was a charachter in a book, might play out. Read this and get a good view of HIStory!
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: Excellent book to discuss in a family setting.
Review: I am halfway through the book and find myself e-mailing my son 1100 miles away after completing each chapter. Our family has enjoyed naming each other nicknames and finding God also has a number of 'names' has given us lots of laughs. Jack Miles reference to the possibility that women have written or influenced the writing of the Bible is not overlooked as is the case in many biblical studies. I am interested in learning more about Jack Miles. He seems
to understand Greek-lore, use of symbols as a Jungian, and
has a fun way of inviting the reader to research root words.
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: 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: 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.
|
