Humanities desk
< April 13	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 15 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 14

Riddle

Hi. My friend told me a riddle that I am still at a loss to figure out, and Google has not helped me much either. Here it is, exactly as he told it: What is sweeter than honey, clearer than water, and more potent than any wine? FOr some reason my friend won't tell me the answer no matter how I ask. Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 00:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've heard that one before. For some reason "love" comes to mind. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 00:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have two ideas. Something esoteric like love, or kindness, or the exact opposite something dangerous like a poisonous gas such as Mustard Gas. I have read that some poisons like this can smell sweet, can be clear and are certainly potent.--Found5dollar (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected... it is scripture. [1] page 492.--Found5dollar (talk) 01:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The closest thing I can find shows up in a poem called Goblin Market. See here. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the entire poem:[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aparently I don't think to deeply. My first thought when I read the riddle was Aguardiente, which seems to match on all three counts. --Jayron32 01:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the article, it seems unlikely to be "sweeter than honey". --Trovatore (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the variety. I had an anisette aquardiente from Coluoedit: corrected spelling mistakembia that was sickeningly sweet, more like a liquer than a vodka. --Jayron32 02:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, and here I was thinking LSD. --Ludwigs2 02:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you don't really mean aguardiente from Columbia, do you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.34 (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whups. Thanks for catching that. Now fixed. --Jayron32 17:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a story that when they were considering a name for what is now the state of Washington, one of the proposals was Columbia. Supposedly it was rejected out of a fear that it would be confused, not with the Central American country, but with the District of Columbia. --Trovatore (talk) 19:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colombia is in South America :P (Though I believe it used to stretch a bit further north) —Soap— 12:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B minor mass: NBArev vs NBA vs BGA

Is there a list anywhere of changes between the old NBA edition of the B minor mass and the new NBArev edition? Likewise, is there a list of changes between the BGA and NBA editions? -- BenRG (talk) 03:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are referring to Bach's Mass in B minor, no doubt? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 05:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why antisemitism is the most common nationalist attitude?

What is the reason for antisemitism to be more common than other nation-based hatreds?--89.76.224.253 (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know it is? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism isn't a nation-based hatred; it's hatred against an ethnic group or a religious group. As Bugs says, I'm not sure anti-semitism is the most common hatred of this kind; antiziganism or prejudice against Gypsies/Romany/Romani is very common still, as is anti Muslim/Arab feeling. My wild guess for the wide occurrence of antisemitism and antiziganism is because the groups are found in many countries, and although some assimilate, many hang on to their customs/religion/language/etc (as appropriate). --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prejudice against gypsies had come to mind immediately, although I didn't bring it up. I think you're onto it - that it has to do with how widespread a minority group is. Ironically, the lack of acceptance tends to encourage clinging together and resisting assimilation. A Jew once remarked to me that the general acceptance of Jews in America, and consequent assimiliation, actually undermined their customs and traditions. I guess you can't have it both ways. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if by "nation-based hatred" you mean hatred of the nation-state of Israel... see: Anti-Zionism. Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely sure what "nationalist attitude" really means in this context, but over most of Europe, nation X was generally only significantly hated by other nationalities directly bordering on X, while Jews were present in every European country, and could be made convenient scapegoats for the rise of finance capitalism, communism, modernism, secularization (perceived de-Christianization of everyday life), etc. etc. Three of the most influential thinkers during the ca. 1850-1950 period were Darwin, Marx, and Freud -- and some of those who didn't like Marx and Freud's ideas seized on the fact that they were of Jewish origins... AnonMoos (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's fair to say that there's a perception that the Jews are the most-targeted group. In part that might be because, especially since WWII, they are no longer willing to put up with it, and will vigorously fight anti-semitism. I doubt the gypsies are so well organized. That persecution-perception and reactions to it are reinforced, I'm sure, by comments made by public figures. After Obama won the Presidency, Don Rickles said, "The next President is going to be one of ours, and then we'll declare war on everybody!" Also there's this, from Tom Lehrer's 1965 song about "National Brotherhood Week": "Oh the Catholics hate the Protestants / And the Protestants hate the Catholics / And the Hindus hate the Moslems [sic] / And everybody hates the Jews!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to say categorically why it is so and most theories put forward are demonstrably easy to object to, with examples where it wasn't true. Advocates of the "rich Jews" phenomenon must bow to antisemitism against impoverished Jewish communities. The religious / separate arguments fall down because of the persecution of secular and assimilated Jews. The "involvement in Christ's death" argument falls down because of antisemitism among non-Christians. The Marx/Freud/Darwin argument above falls down because of the many many centuries of antisemitism preceding their lives. There may be elements of truth in many or all of these, but, in short, many have argued causes, but there's no one overall successful argument. Sometimes, Jews have undoubtedly been handy scapegoats, but that's hardly a rigorous tag to hang probably tens of millions of deaths. --Dweller (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

During much of the 19th century and the early 20th century, anti-Semitism underwent a complete transformation from traditional medieval-style theological "Christ-killing" and blood-libel accusations combined with peasant dislike of anyone different, to become instead a "modern" racial-based and allegedly "scientific" theory adopted by many (such Adolf Hitler) who were neither fervent traditional Christians nor insular uneducated rural-dwellers. The theories mentioned above only "fall down" if you're seeking one simplistic overall single explanation for very different phases of anti-Jewish sentiment all down the centuries (something which no serious historian would do). AnonMoos (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They've tried. And the OP seems to be looking for one overarching theory, too. --Dweller (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller says, "The religious / separate arguments fall down because of the persecution of secular and assimilated Jews." But are they "secular and assimilated"? I think perhaps in a very real sense they are not. (Of course, sources are what we go by in actual practice in article space, and if sources say "secular Jew", we should probably say "secular Jew".) Were they truly "secular and assimilated", arguably you would not know that they were Jews. I think one would have to maintain the understanding that "secular and assimilated Jews" have retained ties to more religious Jews. If this were not the case, would they even be called Jews? Bus stop (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No they wouldn't (necessarily), but that didn't stop, for one example, the Nazis persecuting people who did not identify as Jews in any way, but had a Jewish grandparent. --Dweller (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually one overarching explanation, and it's not limited to Jews, it's the source of pretty much all violent conflict: "Us vs. Them. They're different from us, and we're right, so they must be wrong, and therefore they must be exterminated." You might call that the Dalek Principle. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller says, "No they wouldn't (necessarily), but that didn't stop, for one example, the Nazis persecuting people who did not identify as Jews in any way, but had a Jewish grandparent." But it may be appropriate to assume that after 3 generations devoid of any manifestations of Jewish identity that all traces of Jewish identity are eliminated—meaning that the widespread understanding is that Judaism is persistent and long-lasting, but that it does not last forever—probably not beyond 3 generations. Disclaimer: this is just original research.

My above paragraph is unclear, therefore I am striking it through. Bus stop (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is foolish and ahistorical to treat the specifics of the Nuremberg Laws as having to do with a "widespread understanding" — they correspond with the specifics of NSDAP politics and Hitler's own predilections. They are explicitly not meant to be "cultural" laws but "blood" laws, based on ridiculous notions of biological race. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the Western world, anti-semitism was actually originally based in economics. Both Jewish and Christian laws prevented usury (lending money to people at interest) for people of their own faiths, so devout Christians turned to Jews as money-lenders when they needed loans. This is (in part) why Judaism spread so widely through Europe, and also why there was such animosity towards Jews - like bankers and money-lenders everywhere, Jews were viewed as becoming wealthy off of other people's labor, and obviously had to take forceful (resentment-inducing) action to recover loans that were not properly repaid. Add that Jews and Christians did not intermarry much, and there was a strong perception that Jews were outsiders who took from the Christian community without giving anything back. The religious objections to Jews (as unsaved, or as 'murderers of Christ') came later, and have never had the same kind of power as the cultural/economic objections. Note that even Nazi propaganda (in its original forms) focused on Jews as a cultural/economic problem - blaming much of the collapsed German economy after WWI on them - with the racial/genetic arguments appearing later as the party sank into its own insanity. --Ludwigs2 17:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From my perspective, I don't think antisemitism to be the most extended hatred, I suspect that Anti-Americanism may be more widely spread. Israel is a local power, but the United States is a global power, and there is more people around the world that may resent specific actions by the US or by their people. Cambalachero (talk) 03:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that prejudice against people of Black African descent is far more widespread and deep-rooted than anti-Semitism globally. Racism against Blacks is widespread across the Americas, Europe, Middle East, large parts of Asia, etc.. --Soman (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, most Europeans living in Europe during the pre-WW2 period rarely had any significant direct personal encounters with blacks, and for them anti-black sentiments were based on somewhat remote long-distance stereotypes and cliches. By contrast, many more Europeans regularly encountered Jews in their ordinary lives, so that there was a problem of Jewish-Christian relations within Europe (the so-called "Jewish Question"[sic]), and anti-Jewish sentiment was often affected by personal experiences. AnonMoos (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you honestly come here and ask the question without expecting anything else of an answer to be tolerated, than the "because western people are evil and racist and evil"? The question is so loaded, that it is impossible to have any meaningful discussion, and every answer which is not "everyone is extremely prejudicial without any reason at all" has a very high chance to be deleted as "trolling". In this ideological debate both sides call themselves the incorruptible pure pureness of good, and their adversaries the most evil of all evils... Better spend our energy for more meaningful topics, than such a flame-bait. --87.169.26.197 (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who was right in the Wars of the Roses?

Which side had more rights for the throne and was more legitimate in the war - Yorkists or Lancastrians?--89.76.224.253 (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

War of the Roses may offer some information. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a question that can be answered definitively. A lot depends on how you define "legitimacy". Both the Yorkists and the Lancastrians felt that they had more right and legitimacy to the throne than the other side (hence the war). And modern historians often disagree with each other over the issue. Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the lines of descent from Edward III of England, you will see that the Yorkists had the stronger claim as they were descended from the second son, Lionel of Antwerp, while the Lancastrians were descended from the third son, John of Gaunt. Henry IV had usurped the throne from the rightful king Richard II of England (son of Edward's eldest son, the Black Prince). After the latter's death, the throne rightfully should have passed to the Mortimers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cognatic primogeniture was not yet established in England at that time, so the claims of Lancastrians and Yorkists were equal; the former claimed the crown according to agnatic primogeniture, while the latter claimed it citing cognatic primogeniture. There was no precedent for succession via females when the King had legitimate agnates. However, King Richard II recognised Lionel's descendants as his heirs so that fact might go in their favour. Surtsicna (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)It also depends on what you mean by "legitimate". England had long held that the Right of conquest was a legitimate means to claim the throne; both before and after the Norman Conquest, proper "primogeniture" could be seen as of secondary concern than the ability to hold and/or seize the throne via military means. Just piecing through the Kings of England from the few centuries leading up to the Wars of the Roses, I count numerous examples of the non-primogeniture king succeeding by right of conquest, or only retaining his throne because of defense of an attempt to seize it militarily. See Sweyn Forkbeard, Cnut the Great, William the Conquerer, Henry I of England, The Anarchy, the First Barons' War, etc. --Jayron32 17:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A possibly telling detail: Lionel's daughter Philippa inherited her mother's title (countess of Ulster) but not her royal father's (duke of Clarence). —Tamfang (talk) 22:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody was right. The rightful king in theory, at the beginning of the conflict, was Henry VI, but he was a pathetic failure. Once he was overthrown, the legalities became ambiguous. Looie496 (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(putting on my anarchist hat) There is no such thing as a right to rule others. —Tamfang (talk) 22:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Insects in Mythology

I cannot seem to find an article detailing the role insects have played in mythology. Could someone direct me to this page? Pinguinus (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a category called "Fictional insects" which might help. Also, I googled [insects in mythology] and a number of items came up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't seem to have an overview article on the role that insects have played in mythology... If there are reliable sources upon which to base such an article, you might consider writing it. Blueboar (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might make an interesting article, but you'll run into difficulties around the definition of "mythology". For example, I think Scarab beetle would be an indisputable and fascinating addition, but deciding if this account is mythology, folklore or history will lead you into awkward territory. --Dweller (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just off-hand, the only insect I can think of that has a strong presence in mythology is the spider (which technically isn't even an insect). Spider appears as a prominent character in several Native American and African mythos. Scarab beetles (like butterflies and moths) aren't so much mythological as deeply symbolic. There are also things like ants which appear in fable and folklore but don't really rise the the level of mythology the way that Spider does. Can anyone think of any others? --Ludwigs2 18:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plagues of locusts. And I think scarabs count as mythological in the Egyptian context — see, e.g. Khepera. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Loki transformed himself into some sort of biting/stinging fly to disrupt some dwarfs from completing their end of a bargain. Matt Deres (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We do have Bee (mythology). Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all very much. Pinguinus (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About thirty five years ago, a series of children's stories were being broadcast on Belize radio about a spider character named "Anansy" (my phonetic spelling based on local pronunciation). The stories were said to have originated in Africa and transported with the slaves to the Americas. Anansy was a particularly Amoral character engaging in every conceivable deception. don't know if that would be any help.190.56.107.170 (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably thinking about Anansi the Spider. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pliny the Elder usually included every myth known in the Hellenistic world concerning each animal he covered in his Natural History (Pliny) (which can be read in English here). --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fly in the Sumerian myth of Inanna's descent to the underworld comes to mind. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tithonus; Arachne. —Tamfang (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We also have Gadfly (mythology). Adam Bishop (talk) 06:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Plagues of Egypt – described in the Book of Exodus, part of the well known book of mythology known as the Bible – included gnats and locusts. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beware of the locus of control ! :-) StuRat (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Not to indulge your D&D fantasies, but that should be 'locust of control' for proper comic effect.

--Ludwigs2 06:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a pun, since there is no actual locust of control. StuRat (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's lots of folklore about bees if that's any help.http://tribes.tribe.net/b9b544af-89e5-4aa7-8dec-c917f83c3bd7/thread/4b0c62fc-0f5d-449a-8b6a-12c9767accfe..Hotclaws (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Central Asia

Is Dilip Hiro the only writer that deals with Central Asia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.16.93 (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In what context? There are LOTS of books that deal with, in part or in total, Central Asia, at just about any point in history. It also depends on whether you mean native writes (of which there are likely too numerous to list here) or, say, English Language writers. Also whether you are looking for nonfiction (say history and politics and stuff like that) or fiction; whether you seek historical fiction, modern fiction, or fantasy. If you are looking for recommendations you're going to have to narrow down your criteria as to what sorts of writing about Central Asia you are looking for.. --Jayron32 17:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, I'm guessing the IP is US. For some reason I haven't yet figured out, American schooling on all levels (up through graduate study, even) is oddly blind to everything in central asia. Our cultural perceptions seem to stop at the Balkans and pick up again in the Indian subcontinent or in the coastal regions of eastern asia. It's likely that Ambrose Bierce nailed it on the head when he said "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography," and since we've never committed ourselves to war in central asia the entire region is just not on our radar.

With the tiny little exception of Afghanistan. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So yeah, lots and lots of people write about central asia. you're just not going to find them talked about in the good ol' US of A. --Ludwigs2 17:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the IP is Canadian. One should not assume that everytime a question comes forward that indicates a lack of knowledge of something that it must be an American asking it. --Jayron32 18:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, but it's just so natural to do so. And yes, I'm American, so I can get away with saying that.

--Ludwigs2 18:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All questions indicate a lack of knowledge of something, otherwise why ask it? (Trolls excluded.) It's a lack of knowledge of geography (or simply that there is a world outside the US) that indicates an American is asking. It's not infalible, but it's generally a pretty safe assumption. --Tango (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chinghiz Aitmatov comes to mind. --ColinFine (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.eurasianet.org, which has many different authors writing about lots of issues going on in Central Asia. Nyttend (talk) 03:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OP may be interested to know that there are people of all sorts in central asia, and many of them are writers. Many of these writers write about central asia. We have categories Category:Kyrgyzstani writers, Category:Uzbekistani writers, Category:Tajikistani writers, Category:Uyghur writers, Category:Mongolian writers, Category:Kyrgyzstani writers, all subcats of Category:Asian writers Staecker (talk) 11:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP meant is that is Dilip Hiro the only writer who deals with Central Asia affairs. That is good question. Is there any other writers who books about Central Asia affairs in English?

Allies' strategy for victory over the Axis powers

the Allies' strategy for victory over the Axis powers in Europe after the United States entered into the war (December, 1941).

a. Allies' strategy against Rommel in Africa b. Russia's strategy against Germany c. The invasion of Normandy

I need info on what the allies strategies were, and what russias stagegies were. What their plans were, what the wanted to happen, anything would help! My text book does not cover this (it says use internet or resource books) I havent been able to find anything much on the interent :/.. Thanks! Ekkm4 (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Katy[reply]

Have you looked at a) North African Campaign, b) Eastern Front (World War II), and c) Invasion of Normandy? If you click on the blue links in those articles, you will find more information on the details of each campaign. Marco polo (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also have a look at these articles that show how the Allies came to agreement on their strategic aims:

Good hunting! Alansplodge (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the off-chance you get interested in the Allies against Japan, see the Yalta Conference as well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leroy by shea in "the voice"

In the late 70.s early 80s. a belizean news paper named "The Voice" featured a series of strip cartoons about a character named Leroy, entitled "Leroy by Shea". The cartoon stories enacted a collection of Belizean cultural proverbs. The news paper defunked many years ago. Does anybody know anything about that?190.56.115.3 (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Best-selling book of all time?

I thought that it was the Bible, but my history teacher said that it's Mao's Little Red Book. --70.244.234.128 (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Different numbers have been estimated, and many copies were given away and not sold so it also depends on your definition. The lead of Bible says "The Bible is the best-selling book in history with more than 6 billion copies published". See also Mao's Little Red Book#Publication number and List of best-selling books. The bible does appear to be the most printed book. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many Bibles have been given away (i.e. by the Gideons) too, but they probably bought them to give away. Some publishers probably give away a number of copies, but not enough to likely have much statistical significance. Kansan (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That claim of 6 billion Bibles is hardly from an independent source. It's from the the Bible Society, a body clearly determined to promote that book. I see it as part of the philosophy of "My religion must be right, and all the others wrong, because look at all the people we've given Bibles to." I'd be interested in an answer to equally difficult to answer question of "How many people have ever bought a Bible for their own personal use?" HiLo48 (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, it's worth noting that the number of copies doesn't correspond with anything more than the number of copies. The Little Red Book is no more coherent or accurate for its millions than is Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. (If we wanted to be wry, we might suggest that there isn't a single non-fiction work in the top ten, except, I guess, that Chinese dictionary thing.) --Mr.98 (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, ISTR that many copies of Mao's "Red Book" were also given away. As OR, I myself obtained one in the 1970's merely by writing to the Chinese Embassy and asking for it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.111 (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I paid for mine! (But I don't pretend that proves anything in this discussion.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any idea what book that isn't a religious text or political manifesto ranks highest? Blueboar (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Tale of Two Cities or some Xinhua dictionary apparently, according to the List of best-selling books mentioned above. Who'd've thunk it? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thing everyone is ignoring is that the Bible (with a few modifications between various versions, c.f. deuterocanonical books, apocrypha) has been published in its current form for something like 1,700-1,800 years (the Muratorian fragment dates from the 2nd or 3rd century, and represents the earliest known reference to the modern canon). Admittedly, prior to about 1450, all of these copies were published by hand; still even handwritten, 1250 or so years of writing can produce a LOT of copies. Add to that another 500 years of mechanical printing, and perhaps the past 70-80 years of more modern automated printing techniques, and you've got a lot of copies. I find it hard to believe that, given the head start that the Bible had in terms of time, that any book written in the past century could have overtaken it. --Jayron32 03:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but, the Diamond Sutra was first published in approximately its present form in Chinese in 401 AD (and had existed in India for centuries before that). The present-day Christian Bible did not reach its approximate present form until at least 400 AD. And that was not in English. Even just counting the Chinese version, we know that it was published from 401 AD, the earliest surviving complete printed edition (in the British Library) is dated 868 AD, and is still in print (and is available for purchase) and is sometimes given away by religious organisations. I'm not sure when the first English bible was published, but if we are comparing like-to-like, then it'll have to be Chinese sutra against English bible, or else all language versions of the Diamond Sutra against all language versions of the Bible. For one thing, we know that China, Korea and Japan, at least, all had printing technology from very early times. I'm not sure what age proves in this debate, but if it proves anything then the Diamond Sutra surely trumps the Bible. It's just that no "Diamond Sutra society" has ever bothered to prove the superiority of their beliefs based on how much paper they've used in the last few thousand years. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it have to be Chinese Sutra against English Bible? We're not just interested in English-speaking readers of the Bible, and the language of Christianity was overwhelmingly Greek for a few centuries, followed by being overwhelmingly Latin for a lot of centuries, and is popular in a wide range of countries with a wide range of languages which are acknowledged as different languages. Would the Sutra have to be written in a form of Chinese that was readily readable to a modern speaker of Mandarin before we counted it? Count your Sutra back as far as the contents were the same, in whichever language, and compare it to the Bible including both Old and New Testaments (I'll let the Deuterocanon slide for the purposes of counting modern Bibles, if that's okay?): I'd be interested in the results, but I'm fairly sure the Bible would win: Christians have considered it more important that more people read the text for longer. 86.164.75.102 (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of Bible manuscripts are not full Bibles, they're just a few books, like the Gospels, or some collection of the more interesting books. They didn't bother copying the entire thing every time. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm about to do a no-no, not really sticking to the subject, but what the hell? It can always be edited out. It seems that no matter what medium of communication we use there's always one predominent constant throughout the ages of humanity. People statistically love fantasy. Bearing in mind that the most fantastical book ever produced has to be the bible, it stands to reason that through the ages that it would have to be statistically the most popular.190.56.105.148 (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]