The Top 10 Most Read Books in the World

[tecweston]

Originally Posted by David Munch

Neither is the Twilight saga, it is written in Female.

That seems a bit sexist.

[Latinandgreek]

Originally Posted by tecweston

That seems a bit sexist.

You read my mind.

[Billi]

Originally Posted by K. Molen

On this topic, I find the Wikipedia entry List of best-selling books more interesting and more believable.

Thanks, K. Molen. That looks very interesting!

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by Xanthe

..I'd probably add: the Koran, the Mahabharata, the Divine Comedy, The Odyssey, A Tale of Two Cities, Don Quixote

With all due respect, I seriously doubt that The Divine Comedy, The Odyssey, A Tale of Two Cities, or Don Quixote, despite their literary merits, would make the list of most frequently read books.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

With all due respect, I seriously doubt that The Divine Comedy, The Odyssey, A Tale of Two Cities, or Don Quixote, despite their literary merits, would make the list of most frequently read books.

Actually, if you look at the Wikipedia link posted above, "A Tale of Two Cities" is right at the top of the list, with sales estimated at 200 million copies, compared to LOTR's paltry 150 million! Of course, it's had a century of so more time to sell than LOTR has.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by arkietech

By King James

You're joking, but my late mother, who used to work in a Christian bookstore, said she'd heard customers say of the KJV, "If it was good enough for Jesus and the Apostles, it's good enough for me." She said they weren't joking.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Actually, if you look at the Wikipedia link posted above, "A Tale of Two Cities" is right at the top of the list, with sales estimated at 200 million copies, compared to LOTR's paltry 150 million! Of course, it's had a century of so more time to sell than LOTR has.

Astounding!

[HarryT]

It surprises me, too!

[WT Sharpe]

Erle Stanley Gardner's Perry Mason books are on that list as having sold at least 100 million copies (as a series).

Someone should tell the copyright owners to get on the stick and re-release the entire series.

[WT Sharpe]

Scouting for Boys made the List of best-selling regularly updated books in the More than 100 million copies category, but it's probably good that the current title has been changed to The Boy Scout Handbook.

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Scouting for Boys made the List of best-selling regularly updated books in the More than 100 million copies category, but it's probably good that the current title has been changed to The Boy Scout Handbook.

It astounds me that The Da Vinci Code has sold almost three times as many copies as To Kill a Mockingbird, and this even including all the copies of To Kill a Mockingbird must have been purchased by school systems for assigned reading.


And speaking of the King James Bible . . . This from last December:


King James Bible

[Xanthe]

That's why the list is so bogus. Because if you are counting "most read" books, then anything like "Don Quixote" which has been around since what, the 16th century or so, will have been read by a lot more people than anything written in the past decade, even if the local library hasn't updated its copy in 50 years. Ditto "The Odyssey". Books sold and books read are like apples and oranges, two totally different things. A published or sold book doesn't automatically equate to a read book; I've got a couple hundred TBR books sitting around here.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Scouting for Boys made the List of best-selling regularly updated books in the More than 100 million copies category, but it's probably good that the current title has been changed to The Boy Scout Handbook.

I would have guessed it was changed to "The Girl Guide Handbook".

[crich70]

Originally Posted by rhadin

Harry, in order for the bible to be infallible, it would have had to be originally written by god in all languages. Otherwise there would be the possibility of human error in translation/understanding.

Not noted is whether bible = new or old testament or both or whether or not it includes the koran and the book of mormon.

Actually the Koran and Book of Mormon were both written long after the Bible. They are separate books entirely. One says that Jesus was just a prophet and the other says he went to the new world after leaving his followers. So one denies his divinity and the other adds on things that are contradictory to what the Bible says. Not that I want to get into a debate on that in this forum. The Bible was written in the languages of Hebrew & Aramaic (Old Testament) and Koine Greek (New Testament). The oldest translations were into Latin which made sense at the time since most people spoke it in the old world at that time. It wasn't translated into English until the 1500's. Before that it was in Latin and of course German. Gutenberg printed his Bible around 1450-1455 and Martin Luther had translated it into German even before then. And the most well known (I think) is the King James Version of 1610. There were English translations before KJV but it was the first to receive official sanction by an English monarch. Before that time if you translated it into English you were in danger of a death sentence.

[Indio777]

Originally Posted by crich70

Actually the Koran and Book of Mormon were both written long after the Bible. They are separate books entirely. One says that Jesus was just a prophet and the other says he went to the new world after leaving his followers. So one denies his divinity and the other adds on things that are contradictory to what the Bible says. Not that I want to get into a debate on that in this forum.

Yes, no debates on that please ... Although I think your summary is pretty spot on.

Yes, the Koran and the Book of Mormon are entirely different books. The "bibles" if you will, of Islam and Mormonism. They came later; Mohammed lived in the 7th century and the Book of Mormon was first published in 1830.

And the Old and New Testaments are a single book as far as Christians are concerned, even though the OT has its origins in Judaism. And there is still debate on what actually constitutes the Bible. I am thinking of the Apocryphal books in particular ....

Originally Posted by crich70

Gutenberg printed his Bible around 1450-1455 and Martin Luther had translated it into German even before then. And the most well known (I think) is the King James Version of 1610. There were English translations before KJV but it was the first to receive official sanction by an English monarch. Before that time if you translated it into English you were in danger of a death sentence.

Luther translated the Bible in first half of 16th century. The advent of the printing press made it possible to mass produce books and I guess kind of coincided with an interest in publishing books in the vernacular as well as an increase in literacy (in vernacular languages). By then most of the population in Europe neither read nor spoke Latin. Before then, people in Europe largely relied on hearing bits read by priests or "narrative" art (think of the paintings, stained glass, and sculptures in churches that depicted Biblical scenes) for their "Bible knowledge."

As others have pointed out, Bible reading seems to have largely been done on the part of Protestants. If my Catholic BF is anyone to go by, Catholics do not seem to read the Bible all that much.

There have been numerous translations of the Bible, both to correct perceived inaccuracies in translation and bring it more up to date, language-wise, but for my money, the KJV still rocks. I think it can be read simply as a great work of literature.

Yes the list largely seems to be of works originally published in English. Hmmm ...