kristidurbs's review against another edition
2.0
I finally read this book after having been gifted it over a decade ago.
A History of God is not "God's" history; it is a history of how different people in the Judaic, Islamic, Christian, and eventually secular "traditions" have interpreted God. The book takes you on a historical journey covering the beginnings of these three faiths, through the philosophies of mysticism, enlightenment, and modern atheism. She highlights the luminaries during different time periods that impacted the cultural perception of God in these religions. The book is somewhat scholarly, and thus not a quick read. I can't say it was riveting in the slightest. Exhausting and exacerbating is more like it.
Essentially, Armstrong seeks to show how similar patterns of thought overlap between these religions in history, how these patterns repeat in history, and how God is always anthropomorphized in our thought and beliefs. By the end, she finds that our conception of God does matter in life -- "human beings cannot endure emptiness and desolation; they will fill the vacuum by creating a new focus of meaning." Thus, ideas of God are meant to give our lives meaning, even if those ideas of God are essentially meaningless in of themselves, divorced from anything absolute or true, and *recognized as such* by those who hold those ideas! Therein I find the absurdity.
What is this book really about? God? Not a God I know.
A History of God is not "God's" history; it is a history of how different people in the Judaic, Islamic, Christian, and eventually secular "traditions" have interpreted God. The book takes you on a historical journey covering the beginnings of these three faiths, through the philosophies of mysticism, enlightenment, and modern atheism. She highlights the luminaries during different time periods that impacted the cultural perception of God in these religions. The book is somewhat scholarly, and thus not a quick read. I can't say it was riveting in the slightest. Exhausting and exacerbating is more like it.
Essentially, Armstrong seeks to show how similar patterns of thought overlap between these religions in history, how these patterns repeat in history, and how God is always anthropomorphized in our thought and beliefs. By the end, she finds that our conception of God does matter in life -- "human beings cannot endure emptiness and desolation; they will fill the vacuum by creating a new focus of meaning." Thus, ideas of God are meant to give our lives meaning, even if those ideas of God are essentially meaningless in of themselves, divorced from anything absolute or true, and *recognized as such* by those who hold those ideas! Therein I find the absurdity.
What is this book really about? God? Not a God I know.
beckybmckinney's review against another edition
It's just too dense. I wanted to read it, but I wasn't making any progress any time I tried.
rogerjpatterson's review against another edition
5.0
Second reading -- I doubt I finished it the first time. Covers all aspects of 4000 years of history of a difficult concept in 400 pages so it necessarily gives short shrift to any particular aspect, but an excellent and thought provoking overview of the subject.
smallredboy's review against another edition
challenging
informative
mysterious
reflective
slow-paced
3.5
Sort of rambling at times, though very informative and interesting. I liked the parts on Islam and Judaism the most, but the critique on modern Christianity was wonderful. I love Armstrong's voice - I may read more by her.
janedoelish's review against another edition
3.0
Armstrong's History of God is a fascinating read about the evolution of an idea: well-researched, concise, and accessible.
And yet, I find that her bias is too keenly felt throughout the book. I'm actually sympathetic, sharing at least part of her POV, but I still think that this subtle partisanship damages the integrity of her study.
For example, I find that she does not differentiate sufficiently between the mythical history of monotheism and the factual historical evidence - even after pointing to the fact that events like the Exodus or the Conquest of the Holy Land are mostly mythological. A little less Biblical exegesis and a little more archaeology would have been appreciated in this context.
Likewise, she portrays the Israelites' worship of Baal and Ashera as deviations from an already existing mono- or henotheism - even after specifically pointing out that this retroactive portrayal of matters was a revisionist approach by the editors of the "OT"-canon. And again, one look at extra-biblical sources from the time would have made it abundantly clear that YHVH was one of the sons of El and the husband of Ashera from the beginning. He did not start out as an independent deity, but gradually became one.
Likewise, Armstrong glosses over the debt Christianity owes to the mystery religions of late antiquity: baptism, initiation, communion, a life-death-rebirth deity restoring cosmic order, even the very term mystery - all of that isn't originally Christian, nor can it be traced back to Jewish sources at all. Christianity is basically a mystery cult that traded universalism for exclusivism, and symbolism for claims to historicity.
All in all, however, I greatly enjoyed Armstrong's History of God. It's good to see that the bland anthropomorphism of religious fundamentalism is not the only kind of theism out there.
And yet, I find that her bias is too keenly felt throughout the book. I'm actually sympathetic, sharing at least part of her POV, but I still think that this subtle partisanship damages the integrity of her study.
For example, I find that she does not differentiate sufficiently between the mythical history of monotheism and the factual historical evidence - even after pointing to the fact that events like the Exodus or the Conquest of the Holy Land are mostly mythological. A little less Biblical exegesis and a little more archaeology would have been appreciated in this context.
Likewise, she portrays the Israelites' worship of Baal and Ashera as deviations from an already existing mono- or henotheism - even after specifically pointing out that this retroactive portrayal of matters was a revisionist approach by the editors of the "OT"-canon. And again, one look at extra-biblical sources from the time would have made it abundantly clear that YHVH was one of the sons of El and the husband of Ashera from the beginning. He did not start out as an independent deity, but gradually became one.
Likewise, Armstrong glosses over the debt Christianity owes to the mystery religions of late antiquity: baptism, initiation, communion, a life-death-rebirth deity restoring cosmic order, even the very term mystery - all of that isn't originally Christian, nor can it be traced back to Jewish sources at all. Christianity is basically a mystery cult that traded universalism for exclusivism, and symbolism for claims to historicity.
All in all, however, I greatly enjoyed Armstrong's History of God. It's good to see that the bland anthropomorphism of religious fundamentalism is not the only kind of theism out there.
chadsan's review against another edition
challenging
informative
slow-paced
3.0
I am happy I stuck with this book after being frustrated with the author's biases in the early chapters. I am learning a ton from this book and now that I've gotten accustomed to the author's writing style I am finding myself actually enjoying the book.
They author, Ms. Armstrong, clearly dislikes Christianity and to a lesser extent Judaism and tends to be overly critical of these religions. As some other reviews I've seen have stated she early on decides that the theory that the Pentateuch was written by 5 authors is the only correct and worthwhile theory on this part of the Bible. While she glances over the fact that there has been several other, just as legitimate theories, published she completely ignores them and we are just supposed to trust her decision that this is the only reasonable theory.
Ms. Armstrong assumes motives for the prophets which she writes as facts but which have absolutely no basis in fact and she provides no backup or reference material. Her tone for the Eastern religions (Buddhism and Hinduism) is one of almost praise. She praises those religions for changing and growing as time goes on but finds fault in it with respect to Judaism and especially Christianity.
So far her review of Christianity has been a joke.She claims that the disciples were "shocked" that Jesus died and so they must have made up the story of his resurrection so that the teachings they'd devoted their lives to wouldn't be rendered useless. Once could argue that this is just historically false. Not only does the Bible itself "prove" this assertion incorrect but other historical research from the time contradicts Ms. Armstrong. However, one interesting thing she's done with Judaism and Christianity is describe the development of the other religions and how they were changing and growing at the same time as the main religions of this book were also evolving.
This book really turned starting with the chapter on the history of the Trinity. This was outstanding and not only did I learn a lot but it has given me more food for thought as I contemplate how I feel and will approach the concept of the Trinity.
The chapter on Islam is a pretty solid overview. However, as I suspected Ms. Armstrong treats the development of this religion and Mohammad with absolute "kid gloves". She really glazes over the person that Mohammad is and refuses to even mention any of the major criticisms of him as a person. Additionally, she puts a very positive spin on how Mohammad massively changed Islam in order to make it more politically suitable.For example, when he completely changed what was to become the Koran when he had learned about Abraham and his two sons; and decided to adopt and modify those stories to his suiting she reviews this with understanding and approval. If Jesus or one of the disciples were to have done something so drastically politically expedient she would have crucified them. She also doesn't call into question the written accuracy of the Koran even though, much like the Bible it wasn't written down by Mohammad but after he was gone. Still, it was an informative introduction to the founding of this religion.
They author, Ms. Armstrong, clearly dislikes Christianity and to a lesser extent Judaism and tends to be overly critical of these religions. As some other reviews I've seen have stated she early on decides that the theory that the Pentateuch was written by 5 authors is the only correct and worthwhile theory on this part of the Bible. While she glances over the fact that there has been several other, just as legitimate theories, published she completely ignores them and we are just supposed to trust her decision that this is the only reasonable theory.
Ms. Armstrong assumes motives for the prophets which she writes as facts but which have absolutely no basis in fact and she provides no backup or reference material. Her tone for the Eastern religions (Buddhism and Hinduism) is one of almost praise. She praises those religions for changing and growing as time goes on but finds fault in it with respect to Judaism and especially Christianity.
So far her review of Christianity has been a joke.
This book really turned starting with the chapter on the history of the Trinity. This was outstanding and not only did I learn a lot but it has given me more food for thought as I contemplate how I feel and will approach the concept of the Trinity.
The chapter on Islam is a pretty solid overview. However, as I suspected Ms. Armstrong treats the development of this religion and Mohammad with absolute "kid gloves". She really glazes over the person that Mohammad is and refuses to even mention any of the major criticisms of him as a person. Additionally, she puts a very positive spin on how Mohammad massively changed Islam in order to make it more politically suitable.
ombudsman's review against another edition
3.0
a real accomplishment - the first three chapters were incredible. while the rest is extremely informative (though i'm unsure how much i'll remember), for me the book began to get a little dry when a whole chapter was devoted to doctrinal debates over the trinity. (the most interesting part of this chapter by far was the fact that arius put his own interpretation of the trinity into what seemed to have been a very catchy song.) what i will say is this: she manages to make the trinity both readable and understandable, which is a very difficult task. readability and understanding are her two major virtues throughout the book, and they should not be understated when it comes to such a vast and complex topic as the history of monotheism.
phsn's review against another edition
3.0
I pick up this book only to read some parts of it. And it was okay. Nothing phenomenal.