The most important books ever written

[WICKES]

What do you think are the most important books ever written? In terms of their impact on the world- on the way people have thought and behaved? Also the books that are going to continue to influence and shape the way people behave in the future.

1. The Bible

2. The Koran

3. Darwin's 'Origin of the Species' (I was tempted to put this at number one- it has resulted in a genuine revolution in how we think about ourselves)

4. Marx 'Das Capital' or 'The Communist Manifesto'

5. Newton's Principia (showed that reason WORKS and that the world could be understood via reason)

6. Plato's Republic

7. Shakespeare's Complete works?

8. Einstein's two papers on relativity?

9. John Locke's 'A letter concerning Toleration'/ 'Two Treatises of Government'
(1690) the foundation text of the Enlightenment and the American and French revolutions. The founding fathers of the USA referrred to his work in their letters to each other and Voltaire etc all v. influenced by him

10. The Buddhist sutras? The Tao te Ching?

[Zee.]

I think you should use the word "influential" rather than important.

Because I don't see why Shakespeare should be there. I say this because books which impacted the masses weren't always appreciated e.g the bible. Shakespeare's works are a personal preference.

[wat??]

I think you should use the word "influential" rather than important.

Because I don't see why Shakespeare should be there.

All of the other works are scientifically or otherwise important though, and I doubt you could deny Shakespeare's literary importance.

[Zee.]

I'm not denying Shakespeare's literary importance. But the o.p's post asks the question
" what is the most important book " in terms of its impact on the world. The world is a pretty vast place. And although Shakespeare may be of literary importance and may heavily influence the literary world, I would hardly say that it has made a great impact on the world as a whole. An impact, yes? but not enough to be considered next to the bible as one of the most influential works in the world. Think about it.

[Zee.]

Ask anyone on the street if they know what the bible is. Ask them the impact it has had on our world. Almost every person will say they know what it is and will list its influence.
Ask anyone else about Shakespeare's complete works - with the exception of the "literary" world, most will say the only impact it had on them was its ability to put them to sleep in highschool. The "literary" world is not the world. The "works" that had the most influence on people were the ones accessible by all.

[wat??]

I'm not denying Shakespeare's literary importance. But the o.p's post asks the question
" what is the most important book " in terms of its impact on the world. The world is a pretty vast place. And although Shakespeare may be of literary importance and may heavily influence the literary world, I would hardly say that it has made a great impact on the world as a whole. An impact, yes? but not enough to be considered next to the bible as one of the most influential works in the world. Think about it.

I know, but I was sort of thinking of this thread as a sort of "most important books, AND most important works of fiction" type thing.

[WICKES]

I think you should use the word "influential" rather than important.

Because I don't see why Shakespeare should be there. I say this because books which impacted the masses weren't always appreciated e.g the bible. Shakespeare's works are a personal preference.

Yes, I'm not sure about Shakespeare. I think what I had in mind was Harold Bloom's comment that his complete works form a sort of secular Bible for much of the intellectual, English speaking world- a sort of touchstone of sanity.

[Zee.]

Most people here know i don't like Shakespeare very much, so i'm bias.

[Tsuyoiko]

I would include Nicolaus Copernicus' De Revolutionibus.

[PoeticPassions]

I would add in there Machiavelli's THE PRINCE, Homer's THE ODYSSEY, Dante's Divine Comedy, John Calvin- INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION....

but I will base these on the idea of most influential books (fiction and non-fiction alike) and in this group I would include Shakespeare...since he has not only contributed vast amounts to the English language, but also to theater, to human understanding, and much more

[Oniw17]

I think the most influential and the most important are a bit different. For example, Galileo may have never wrote the Assayer without the influence of Copernicus, but the Assayer was much more important for what it was. It introduced the scientific method(besides descartes, et al.'s methods), scientific language, and the idea that mathematics was the language of god and could be used to find the answers to any question about the world(Newton made good use of this idea). The Vedas have had a lot of influence and so have the 4 books of Confucianism. Marco Polo's book had a lot of influence on European explorers and is surely an indirect cause for all the voyages of map-making that the Europeans did and the discovery of the western hemisphere by Europeans(which eventually had profound ecological effects). I can't think of anything else right now.

[ihavebrownhaira]

I would say Ham on Rye by Charles Bukowski. Many of you might laugh, but in my opinion he is a modern Dostoevsky. As one man put it Charles Bukowski was sent here to kick the mickey mouse out of all our heads. He surely accomplished that with me. Though I do enjoy Mickey Mouse at times. Usually when the sun is shining and a women is fondling my toes.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I think that is a very good list Wickes, can't think that I would change that myself.
------------------------------------------

I don't see why Shakespeare should be there.

Ask anyone else about Shakespeare's complete works - with the exception of the "literary" world, most will say the only impact it had on them was its ability to put them to sleep in highschool.

Yes and in their haste to criticise something which they can't be bothered to read I bet some of the words they would use were invented by Shakespeare. Shakespeare is so important that it has immersed itself in the conscious of the English language without most people even realising it, it even transcends the English language itself, but true, if it is not an Australian soap opera or it takes more effort to read then flicking a button on a TV screen the majority of the public won't be interested.

[bazarov]

What is Shakespeare doing here?

It depends on part of the world. So, Bible, Kuran and other religious books.

[manolia]

In terms on the impact on the world..how about "Mein Kampf"? Very negative impact though ;)

[Lokasenna]

In terms of importance and influence (saying nothing about quality):

Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales can be credited with establishing English (as opposed to French) as the main language of England, and thus through the course of the history, the world.

Chairman Mao's Little Red Book, in terms of its cultural impact on Asia, and in terms of modern China's influence on the world.

Magna Carta may be more of a treaty than a book, but as the establishment of modern democracy it must surely be counted.

Dr Johnson's Dictionary, which should be obvious.

Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Women, which pretty much began the feminist movement.

Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica by Sir Issac Newton, arguably the most important scientific document in history (I would personally argue for its inculsion over Einstein, brilliant though he was).

Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations that established modern economic theory, that has shaped the non-Communist world.

The Bible has been mentioned, but I would suggest the King James Bible as the most important version, being the definitive, first authourised translation into the vernacular.

And finally, and I mean this entirely seriously, the Telephone Directory. Just consider how that revolutionised the world's communications!

[manolia]

Chairman Mao's Little Red Book

Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica by Sir Issac Newton

Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations

Agreed :thumbs_up

[LitNetIsGreat]

Some good ones Loka, but I'll pass on the phone book.

[manolia]

Another one: Herodotu's History

[kelby_lake]

Ulysses
Lady Chatterley's Lover

Basically anything that got people worked up.

[ihavebrownhaira]

In terms of importance and influence (saying nothing about quality):

Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales can be credited with establishing English (as opposed to French) as the main language of England, and thus through the course of the history, the world.

Chairman Mao's Little Red Book, in terms of its cultural impact on Asia, and in terms of modern China's influence on the world.

Magna Carta may be more of a treaty than a book, but as the establishment of modern democracy it must surely be counted.

Dr Johnson's Dictionary, which should be obvious.

Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Women, which pretty much began the feminist movement.

Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica by Sir Issac Newton, arguably the most important scientific document in history (I would personally argue for its inculsion over Einstein, brilliant though he was).

Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations that established modern economic theory, that has shaped the non-Communist world.

The Bible has been mentioned, but I would suggest the King James Bible as the most important version, being the definitive, first authourised translation into the vernacular.

And finally, and I mean this entirely seriously, the Telephone Directory. Just consider how that revolutionised the world's communications!

All those are crap.

[togre]

ihavebrownhari, your insight is truly astounding. I certainly will ponder the weighty views you have espoused for some time.



Anyway...

I don't know exactly where to put these in degrees of importance, and I will certainly grant that my knowledge is skewed toward Western culture/worldview, but I think the following deserve at least an honorable mention:

Aristotle especially as interpreted/developed through the works of Thomas Aquinas have had a profound impact not only on the religious mindset of Europe/America, but also was the foundation upon which rationalism and later empiricism (science) grew.

Also, as long as we are talking about the impact a specific work had upon the language of a people, I think it is hard to underestimate the way Luther's translation of Die Bibel (the Bible) into German unified a language that was incredibly un-uniform and diverse in dialects.

I don't know. What do you guys think?

[Zee.]

I really don't agree with Shakespeare being there, or D.H lawrence. You're thinking of the literary world. And not the world as whole. You're disregarding the millions of people who have never picked up a book, let alone read one.

I think you need to take a political approach when you're talking about books which IMPACTED the world.

[c4its]

The answer to this question certainly depends on what you mean by important. My initial response to this question was to think of the Encyclopaedia Britannica's series of the Great Books of the Western World. I think it is impossible for anyone to agree on the most important books, but this series of books is the perfect start to coming more familiar with what our society has come to regard as most relevant. The Great Conversation is the opening book in this series and was written by one of the professors that was on the committee that chose the books of the series. Hutchins writes this book as a sort of preface to explain the reasons for creating this series of Great Books. Reading his book really clarified to me why The Great Books are so incredibly important and awesome. However, the series only includes books from the western world; the best books of the eastern world weren't taken into account. Huge bummer. But the series is still fantastic.

[wat??]

I think that the first books to be printed about how to properly (obviously not perfect when they were printed) cure sick people, have been the most important.

[amalia1985]

Another one: Herodotu's History

Couldn't agree more. Also, I am one of the supporters of Shakespeare's Works, and the plays by the Greek dramatists, Euripides, Sophocles, Aeschylus.

[Mag Master 21]

I think Joseph Campbell - Hero with a thousand faces deserves to be up there. It will in due time at least.

[ihavebrownhaira]

ihavebrownhari, your insight is truly astounding. I certainly will ponder the weighty views you have espoused for some time.



Anyway...

I don't know exactly where to put these in degrees of importance, and I will certainly grant that my knowledge is skewed toward Western culture/worldview, but I think the following deserve at least an honorable mention:

Aristotle especially as interpreted/developed through the works of Thomas Aquinas have had a profound impact not only on the religious mindset of Europe/America, but also was the foundation upon which rationalism and later empiricism (science) grew.

Also, as long as we are talking about the impact a specific work had upon the language of a people, I think it is hard to underestimate the way Luther's translation of Die Bibel (the Bible) into German unified a language that was incredibly un-uniform and diverse in dialects.

I don't know. What do you guys think?

I don't agree. At all. The Bible is a fat joke. The idea of God is a joke. He is pitiful if he does exist. He is a fat pig if he does exist. So is man.

[Mag Master 21]

I don't agree. At all. The Bible is a fat joke. The idea of God is a joke. He is pitiful if he does exist. He is a fat pig if he does exist. So is man.

The question to the thread wasn't "Are you a fanatical, mindless atheist?" If it was, you would have answered it beautifully.

I think you should focus on reading comprehension before attempting to make another post.

[JBI]

The letter from Columbus to Isabella saying he reached land. Though, I for one think of the Confucian classics when these sorts of posts come up, as well as the Buddhist, Hindu, and Taoist Classics. The Bible, for the most part, is oral literature (with the exception of a few books), and wasn't "written" in the sense that we have it.

[ihavebrownhaira]

I believe God is good, but he is messing with me. He lets me sink to the bottom and at times I am comfortable, but when people grow in my territory oh how it digs under my skin.

[JCamilo]

Exclusion of Shakespeare only makes sense if one try to argue that Art have no impact on society or much less than science, philosophy, politcs or religion. Since it have, Shakespeare must be up here as Dante or anything that proves that all lists are flawed.

[wat??]

Exclusion of Shakespeare only makes sense if one try to argue that Art have no impact on society or much less than science, philosophy, politcs or religion. Since it have, Shakespeare must be up here as Dante or anything that proves that all lists are flawed.

I would disagree that art has an importance equal to science, politics or religion.

[JBI]

I would disagree that art has an importance equal to science, politics or religion.

You'd be wrong. Religion and politics are aspects of art, and science evolved out of art as well.

[mayneverhave]

Ethics are aesthetics.
Science, however, I would believe as deliberately purging its enquiries of aesthetics. Mood has nothing to do with it.

We could, however, argue as Hume would argue, and say that our philosophical beliefs are basically a product of mood, and the system I believe in is simply the one that is most appealing to me at a given time, but I am not sure this holds with science.

All this aside, I don't believe we can measure the aesthetic value of something in its effect on society, just like we can't measure the truth of the statement "Shakespeare was born in 1564", by its effect on society. Pragmatism is wacko.

[wat??]

You'd be wrong. Religion and politics are aspects of art, and science evolved out of art as well.

Well using art as a broad term like that you would be right, but saying that Shakespeare influenced art (in a very narrow sense) and so made a contribution to society equal to, say, the authors of the Bible is a bit silly in my eyes.

I was using a much narrower view of art as was the poster who referenced Shakespeare.

[Zee.]

Look, whether people "like" the bible or not is irrelevant to the fact it probably is the most influential book in the world

[JCamilo]

Well using art as a broad term like that you would be right, but saying that Shakespeare influenced art (in a very narrow sense) and so made a contribution to society equal to, say, the authors of the Bible is a bit silly in my eyes.

I was using a much narrower view of art as was the poster who referenced Shakespeare.

Well,
for once the argument Art is a important as politics, science, etc. is different from Shakespeare is important as the bible. (Even because the bible also is important for its artist aspect - in fact, to us today, the bible is considerable more important for the artistic aspect since the narratives are more relevant than the legal systems and even the metaphysical system)...and ok, Politics is a topic of art, i would not equate both (just as never going to equate ethics and aesthetics, unless I someone use such explanation for this, tat iin the end, ethics would not be ethics, and aesthetics would not be aesthetics)...

Just had to think,Primitive societies had Mythology, the only form to express this mythology and gather the society together as by artistics representation. The first organized religion? The samething. They would have their moral laws, but would they abide storytelling, music, painting, etc? Never. The political power? Philosophy (Plato is a wonderful example).
Science would came to the game latter but even science... The western society shift to the modernization? Starts with science and philosophy embracing art. It is Da Vince, Dante, Machiavelli, etc (which you know about, so I am not listing...) and Enlightiment?
And the XIX century? Before Marx, Darwin, Freud, romanticism was already giving the society the necessary perception change and critical capacity to deal with progress, evolution, socialism, psychology, etc. They found fertility.
Of all the fields, art is the one with greater communicative power (and the powers to be - scientific, political, religious - knew and used it), it is the field that allow a critical and speculative capacity necessary for the great social changes, it is the field that works with memory... There is always art in the middle (usually before) of history...

As Shakespeare?
People do not read it today? But who ever read the Bible? The effect of this book have nothing to do with reading. It is more how they know what is in the bible without reading than anything else.
How many people here read Darwin? Maybe a few biologists, but even so, it is not necessary, since modern works dealing with the development of darwin is more relevant than his books.
Machiavelli? If anything we would clean his name, since there is nothing machiavellian about him. Funny enough, all those people who do not read or dislike shakespeare, probally will understand if I point a guy talking with a girl and say "That guy is a romeo"...
Nothing to say, who remember the name of a single pope, his actions, the politics of any noble from Italy? Any of them are as relevant as Dante, that basically invented that country before anyone else (You may argue that Dante is an artist, a philosopher, a politic, maybe even a scientist... but where Dante expressed all this together?)...
Without art, Science, Religion and Politics (and even Philosophy, the only that can claims to be more relevant that everything, since it deals with everything) would be mute, deaf and blind. 3 little monkeys.

[kelby_lake]

Couldn't agree more. Also, I am one of the supporters of Shakespeare's Works, and the plays by the Greek dramatists, Euripides, Sophocles, Aeschylus.

All good plays stem from those Greek guys! :)

[arthera09]

I am really confused on how everyone has missed Don Quixote. That is the single most important book in my life, but the impact that it had on literature and philosophy is beyond measure. Some could argue that modern fiction would not exist in the form it does now without Cervantes.

Also I would like to note that even though Einstein's and Darwin's are extremely influential most of their work is not original and was drawn from other sources. Most of the ideas had existed for decades, but they were the first to publish the books and papers that were easily accessible by a general audience (even though most people never read them).

My other personal addition to the list that is a paper by Alan Turing "On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem". In this paper he invented computer science, which he later used to invent the first computer. Without this paper computers would not be where they are now. In fact the collected works of Alan Turing have other extremely important influences of the fields of artificial intelligence, game theory and basically anything having to do with modern computers. But few people are familiar with his work or even Turing, who I would argue is one of the most important people in modern history for more reasons than I have listed above. Since most of his works are mathematics papers one needs a background in mathematics to understand them, but their influences are unmeasurable.

[manolia]

Couldn't agree more. Also, I am one of the supporters of Shakespeare's Works, and the plays by the Greek dramatists, Euripides, Sophocles, Aeschylus.

Yeah. I wasn't thinking of literature, poetry etc though. I guess i should ;) :)



I think you need to take a political approach when you're talking about books which IMPACTED the world.

That's what i thought too. Some of the arguments provided by others about literature and art were convincing though.

[JBI]

Look, whether people "like" the bible or not is irrelevant to the fact it probably is the most influential book in the world

Which book? The bible is many books, many of which not really books, but teachings, and orally transmitted stories.

[togre]

Which book? The bible is many books, many of which not really books, but teachings, and orally transmitted stories.

Saying it often enough doesn't make it so. What evidence do you have of oral history? Manuscript evidence, especially for the New Testament leave a markedly limited time span for "oral transmission." Furthermore, the idea of long periods of oral transmission flatly contradicts much of the explicit internal testimony (Luke saying he wrote this, Isaiah saying he wrote this, Moses saying he wrote this and Jesus later concurring) as well as the implicit internal evidence (the acrostics of the psalms, the scribal qualities of Chronicles, the fact that most of the New Testament is comprised of letters).

Beyond that, why does the fact that the Bible is a collection of books (I'd rather call it a work written by many human authors over a long span of time, which is how the Bible characterizes itself, but whatever) exclude it from the conversation? Who is uncomfortable referring to the Koran as a unit or the Cantaberry Tales or even Dante's Divine Comedy which has truly distinct parts.

I apologize for sidetracking the conversation, and would be willing to discuss these points in a different forum, but JBI it would be better to base objections on that relative impact of the Bible rather than whether it technically fits the criteria for the discussion.

[JCamilo]

Saying it often enough doesn't make it so. What evidence do you have of oral history?

While I disagree, because oral history ceases to be oral when it is written down, I doubt you will even found any archeological study of the bible that wont agree that many of his books are writen forms of oral traditions.


Manuscript evidence, especially for the New Testament leave a markedly limited time span for "oral transmission."

From where you got it? Manuscript evidence shows that the gospels were written almost two decades (or more) after the life of Jesus, this is more than enough time for oral tradition to be developed. In Brazil there is documentantions of oral stories that became popular less than 5 years after the death of Lampião, a notorious bandit here.


Furthermore, the idea of long periods of oral transmission flatly contradicts much of the explicit internal testimony (Luke saying he wrote this, Isaiah saying he wrote this, Moses saying he wrote this and Jesus later concurring)

Again, it is not necessary such long period as you claim. Plus, Homer, which is proved as oral poet, also said he wrote this and that. It is a matter of style, simple as that. Saying you have writen something adds credibility, specially for old texts. (And Luke saying he wrote this? All right, so he heard something and wrote, which implies oral tradition evidence, altough, If I am not mistaken, Luke is not exactly the most influenced by oral tradition.)


as well as the implicit internal evidence (the acrostics of the psalms, the scribal qualities of Chronicles, the fact that most of the New Testament is comprised of letters).

Yes, the letters are more likely not from Oral Tradition, that is why JBI said many books. Revelations, is another unplausible example. But the poems? Meh, 2500 years ago, poetry and orality are extremelly close, you can not separete both. The Scribal quality of the chronicles is also irrelevant: there is writen quality in several texts writen under oral tradition influence (1001 Nights, Homer, Guimaraes Rosa) and the texts of the bible are "polished" by a centuries. In other hand, the Genesis, with his cosmogony format and even internal contraditions, Noah ark story, the proverbs (a traditional oral formulation) are obviously good examples.


Beyond that, why does the fact that the Bible is a collection of books (I'd rather call it a work written by many human authors over a long span of time, which is how the Bible characterizes itself, but whatever) exclude it from the conversation?

That would be, except it was put together centuries after those books are created, some never meant to be together and some by individuals who are not even the "authors", a very different book from the Encyclopedia, a book written by many authors.
And it makes a lot of sense. There is books of laws, books with parables, with poems, with proverbs, with chronicles, with fables, mythical theme, more historical themes, letters, allegories... they are very different and not all of them are well know or read alikely, never having the same impact. Even the quality is not the same...


Who is uncomfortable referring to the Koran as a unit or the Cantaberry Tales or even Dante's Divine Comedy which has truly distinct parts.

The Koran is much more similar, but Dante and Chaucer ? The same author, the same style, the same storyline, etc? Are going to tell me that Leviticius is similar to Psalms?


I apologize for sidetracking the conversation, and would be willing to discuss these points in a different forum, but JBI it would be better to base objections on that relative impact of the Bible rather than whether it technically fits the criteria for the discussion.

well, maybe if we get 500 years of English literature, place in a book, we would have a book with Bacon, Shakespeare, Newton, Pope, Hume, Milton, Keats, Dickens, Adam Smith and Darwin together, call it "Bloblooks" and we would have the most influential book ever...
But since nobody did it, it is, in my opinion, to deal with the Bible impact as a single work, which nobody read the whole...

[blp]

How about the first novel, Rabelais' Gargantua?

Also, the works of Freud. And, with reference to the art v. science debate, didn't Freud say something to the effect that he'd found the deepest psychological insights in the great works of literature?

[DisPater]

Aristotle and Plato's works
Sophocles' plays
Vedas
...and of course Iliad and Odyssey

[Dr. Hill]

Dostoevskii's "The Brothers Karamazov"

[blazeofglory]

I choose ancient texts, for they are unmatchable.

The Vedas are in fact great storehouses of knowledge and are incomparable. The Bible and the Koran are of course great springs of knowledge. And our knowledge can not be complete without reading them.

The composers or writers of them were greatly dedicated and as a matter of fact they stuffed us with so vast knowledge that we always remain indebted to them.

[Silas Thorne]

Anyone for Confucius' Analects? ;)

[Jeremiah Jazzz]

How about the first novel, Rabelais' Gargantua?


Wouldn't it be Pantagruel, seeing how that came first?

[JBI]

Saying it often enough doesn't make it so. What evidence do you have of oral history? Manuscript evidence, especially for the New Testament leave a markedly limited time span for "oral transmission." Furthermore, the idea of long periods of oral transmission flatly contradicts much of the explicit internal testimony (Luke saying he wrote this, Isaiah saying he wrote this, Moses saying he wrote this and Jesus later concurring) as well as the implicit internal evidence (the acrostics of the psalms, the scribal qualities of Chronicles, the fact that most of the New Testament is comprised of letters).

Beyond that, why does the fact that the Bible is a collection of books (I'd rather call it a work written by many human authors over a long span of time, which is how the Bible characterizes itself, but whatever) exclude it from the conversation? Who is uncomfortable referring to the Koran as a unit or the Cantaberry Tales or even Dante's Divine Comedy which has truly distinct parts.

I apologize for sidetracking the conversation, and would be willing to discuss these points in a different forum, but JBI it would be better to base objections on that relative impact of the Bible rather than whether it technically fits the criteria for the discussion.

Thanks for derailing on misconceptions. According to the rabbinic tradition, which is the foundation for Torah scholarship - predating Christ by some years, the Jews received two Torahs, one written, one oral. Most scholars I believe today are of the mind that the stories both originated as oral, but the fact remains that there still ways the oral law, the oral story even if the Bible was true. In truth, even the Gospels necessarily need to be, to an extent, from the oral tradition, given that Jesus's words are recorded after his death by observers, thereby making at least one oral link in between speech and text.

Beyond that though, I of course cannot even approach the same evidence as an expert mind you, there is sufficient scholarly work done, showing aspects of the oral tradition within the texts themselves.

Either way, I'm not going to argue. They have found proto-Torahs in the sands and in caves, and books of earlier, less developed versions. Since you a) know not enough about the archeology or the bibliography of the texts themselves, or b) willfully choose to ignore the facts, then I personally see no room for discussion.

And yes, it is a collection of books. Genesis book one, Exodus, book 2, etc. etc. Are we going to call my volume of Ibsen plays all one book, because they are published together? What about the Norton anthology of English literature, does it contain only one book? Seriously, there are numerous, often contradictory books within the Biblical canon (both Old and New).

[dafydd manton]

The question is, what is the most widely available book in the world? Which book has been translated in to the most languages? Which book has stood the test of time better than any other? Which book is still the number one best seller? If you take those few criteria, the answer is without doubt the Bible, written in Koine, Aramaic and Hebrew, yet available in about 40 different translations in English alone, from the paraphrase to the scholarly work. Tyndale Rotherham, Knox, Moffatt, Weymouth, Phillips, Byington, the Geneva, the KJV, the RSV, The Emphatic Diaglott................

[Zee.]

I agree with the above post.

Honestly, listing such things as Shakespeare? who are we kidding. It's ignorant to even assume that Shakespeare's work has impacted the entire world as a whole.

Books that people went to war over, that gave purpose to people's lives, that took from them and gave them everything. Those books are what have made the most impact.

[JCamilo]

I would be kidding to think the bible have also such impact on half of the world (since this half is almost chinese ), where Confucio is considerable more relevant. (And we do have artists on those places who are under Shakespeare influence as well...)... probally that would made Homer the most influential of them all... (Which is no denial of bible importance, but who is kinding about Shakespeare, in only 400 years he exist also in several languages, variations, etc. So... the above post didnt helped much...)

[PeterL]

You should drop Einstein from the list. Although Einstein has had some impact over the last 100 years, his theory of Special Relativity is certainly incorrect; it was based on false premises, but it describes many ordinary phenomena. Hos theory of General Relativity is being attacked because Quantum Theory, for which Einstein got his Nobel, shows it to be inaccurate in many ways. The cover story of Scientific American is a review of how Quantum Theory is breaking General Relativity apart.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=was-einstein-wrong-about-relativity

[evening_read]

im surprised that until now nobody said Uncle Tom's Cabin ,best selling novel of 19th century and second book after the bible. it had a phenomenal impact. i dont know another book that helped humanity get rid of a monster like slavery

[JCamilo]

Well, mostly because the British are more motivated by Adam Smith to combat the slave traffic for a decades when this book appeared...
or maybe because slavery and humanity are a little bigger than United States and this book have no world-wide effect at all...

[Pryderi Agni]

I've said it many times before, and I'll say it again.

The most important work ever written is Will Durant's The Story of Civilization. A universal history of this caliber cannot be found anywhere else.

[Scheherazade]

Yellow Pages