What is the single greatest work of literature, and why

It's the most influential, not the greatest on it's own merit

>>9764531
You wot

>>9764534
It's the most influential, not the greatest on it's own merit

>>9764538
Say that again, I dare you

>>9764543
It's the most influential, not the greatest on it's own merit?

The Iliad
Phaedo
Symposium
Moby Dick
Hamlet

I'm not even very well read and can name plenty of works better than all of the books in the Bible. The only ones that can compare to the works I've listed are Samuel, David, Job, Jeremiah, Ecclesiastes, and Proverbs. Both the Pentateuch and the New Testament are pretty awful outside of a religious context, desu

File: 1470609769451.jpg (56KB, 768x576px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 768x576px

>>9764552
Ah yes, yes, I guess it is

The Bible is the greatest history and philosophy book.

>>9764558
forgot Psalms, probably the best /lit/ in the Bible.

>>9764558
Obvious bait, don't you trolls never learn that you have to be more subtle if you want to bait someone?

File: saintsocrates.jpg (53KB, 217x600px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 217x600px

>>9764520
The Bible is the single greatest work of literature because it is the holy word of God. Its contents are the single greatest advancement towards the Platonic form of the good that Man has ever achieved. Pseuds of /lit/ BTFO forever.

>>9764558
>There are six books in the bible that are of comparable quality to other great works
>Therefore the bible is bad

Also you forgot Psalms.

>>9764570
Yup, that guy knows it.

>>9764571
>Therefore the bible is bad
please point out where I said that, triggered Christcuck

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCjBspxuUmU

Everyone ITT except >>9764570

>>9764574
You were as vague and stupid as possible with your answer, not even specifying your opinions and comparisons, don't be mad if people do the same when answering you, idiot.

>>9764558
The problem is that you're not Christian like most of the most influential Western writers were, so you won't get "it" as they have and you need genre fiction "good plotline" to coddle your way through a work, who probably reads today's English translations, and I can tell that because you didn't list any of Aristotle's works, the sign of someone who doesn't know how to properly make a decent list a la Harold Bloom n' Onions

>>9764583
>6 books in the Bible are good
>other parts are bad
How is that vague?

>>9764520
Because the Jews are simply genetically superior.

>>9764585
shut the fuck up n'wah now i want a bloomin onion. what is that sauce anyway, 1000 island?

>>9764585
I might need a good plotline to coddle me through a book, but at least i don't need a good plotline to coddle me through life like christfags

File: RICH.jpg (51KB, 459x344px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 459x344px

>>9764594
ONE DAY YOU MAY

>>9764585
Aristotle isn't particularly literary you fucking monsoon.
Aw man now I really wanna read Montaigne again.

>>9764585
I've read the Organon, Physics, Metaphysics, Ethics, and De Anima. When I hear the word "literature" I think art, and Aristotle's works are purely awful to read. They contain profound ideas but they're just his notes.

File: 1500226547673.jpg (24KB, 277x296px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 277x296px

>all these atheistfags on full damage control

>>9764610
All I see in this thread are Chirstian sperging out.

>>9764604
>>9764606
>doesn't read Aristotle in Greek

>>9764588
Is it so hard to expand on your thoughts and present the reason why you think the Bible is so worthless in comparison to the other books you compared it with? You didn't even talked about those 6 books and why you consider them better than the other. Basically your post was something like "Bible is bad, those books are better, deal with it". How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when your answer looked like a troll created to get reactions from angry christians?

>>9764619
OP opened with nothing to work off of.

>>9764620
How can anyone start saying anything worth saying at all, then?

File: 1499515129326.jpg (40KB, 500x381px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 500x381px

>>9764620
>off of

>>9764618
>implying they're written any better in Greek

>>9764634
Yes, that's exactly what I'm implying, especially Aristotle.

>>9764645
Well then, you are a pleb.

>>9764520

>What is the single greatest work of literature
It is indeed the Bible

>, and why is it the Bible?
because of
a) its monumental impact on human life, and
b) its monumental impact on literature

>>9764663
How shouldI read the Bible? Start with the New Testament and read it from start to finish? Or analyse every important passage while reading specialists commentating about it?

>>9764683
Read the Old Testament (or at least the major books) alongside some sort of secondary text or online lecture series. Yale has a pretty good OT course to follow along with, and then the New Testament in the same way.

Also make sure to buy a bible that has good notes. The translation in the KJV is certainly beautiful, but for an introductory bible study, something like the Oxford Annotated Bible which uses the NRSV as its text is a better choice.

>>9764727
Should I finish the Bible before starting Brothers Karamazov? I heard the latter has a lot of references to the former.

>>9764763
You should finish the bible before reading anything else

>>9764683

I've put quite a bit of thought and effort into a reading arrangement for the Bible, including working on a chart for /lit/. I'm disappointed with this board often enough that I can't get it finished.

In the broadest sense, I recommend reading from the Old Testament and New Testament concurrently. Both Testaments are further broken down by genre, which I think it's beneficial to alternate among. Starting with the New Testament disregards the importance of the OT in setting it up, while trying to start by going through the OT start-to-finish leads many to throw in the towel in the middle of Leviticus.

For the OT, I think it's helpful to consider its main divisions within Judaism, namely Torah, Prophets, and (other/Wisdom) Writings. This places a lot of historical books under the Prophets label; another schema includes these books and the Torah proper under the Historical umbrella. Maybe just keep both considerations in mind. Either way, one could start with Genesis, then read something like Isaiah, then maybe Job, and so on. Also, I like the idea of interspersing the Psalms throughout instead of just mowing it all down at once; maybe reading one of the five 'books' of Psalms (1-41, etc.) after a Torah-Prophets-Writings cycle.

The New Testament can basically be divided into the Gospels and the Epistles [letters]. Acts is essentially a sequel to Luke, so I think it goes best with them and the five can be labeled Historical. I like the idea of starting with the Gospel of Mark, as it's the shortest, gets right to the point, and is thought to be the earliest one written. Matthew is very highly related to/dependent on the Old Testament, and I think it's best to read some OT (especially Isaiah) first. I also like the idea of starting with some non-Pauline epistles first, holding off on the Pauline ones until later since Paul isn't introduced until Acts while the other authors show up in the Gospels.

>>9764960
> I'm disappointed with this board often enough that I can't get it finished.

You should do it, anon. Despite some idiots and trolls that post here from time to time, this board is one of the best and has a lot of honest people searching for starting points in their studies. Honestly, I can't think of a better place to discuss literature, philosophy, theology - which is not extremely slow - such as this board.

Also, thank you for the recommendation.

>>9765027

You're welcome, and thank you too. It's become a rather personal project. We'll see. What you have above is pretty much the essence of it. I hope your reading may be edifying

File: einstein-laughing.jpg (68KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 640x360px

>>9764562
>history

>>9764960

utter shit

>>9765440

hello 4chan

>>9764663
The Bible's important because of its impact? I think you imagine you're defending the Bible, but you're being a little foolish. If all literature now existing were lost except for Harry Potter, and then Harry Potter became the basis of subsequent life and literature, would that make Harry Potter more valuable than the Bible? Defend it for its intrinsic worth, not for how influential it's been.

>>9765484
What makes you think Harry Potter has more intrinsic worth than the Bible?

File: 1488575089890.png (973KB, 927x907px) Image search: [Google]

973KB, 927x907px

>>9765891
>this level of reading comprehension

>>9765484
With this logic any book could be considered the best.

>>9765891
I think you should re-read comments before responding to them from now on.