>>7490696
Story? Exodus, John, Samuel and Kings.
>>7490696
Most interesting to me was Acts.
Least is probably Numbers or Deuteronomy or something like that
>>7490696
Job :^)
>>7490696
>most interesting
any of the gospels really
>least interesting
probably leviticus
>>7490696
are we counting the apocrypha?
>>7490981
"No."
>>7490725
Why the meme face? Job is literarily fantastic.
>>7490981
Deuterocanon*
>>7490696
Most interesting from a story perspective:
* Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, 1-2 Samuel
* Luke-Acts
Most interesting from a literary perspective:
* Job
* Psalms
* Ecclesiastes
* Song of Solomon
* Isaiah
*Gospel of John
* Revelation
>>7490696
Job, Psalms, Daniel, Genesis, Exodus, Revelations, and the Gospels are perhaps the most important and/or known, but really almost every book of the Bible can be found referenced in a poem or prose work.
>>7491268
This guy has it right. I'd add a minor prophet like Hosea or Micah, though.
>>7491279
Some of the prophets had a major performative aspect to their message, like how Jeremiah lived in squalor or how Hosea's unfaithful wife embodied Israel's unfaithfulness. Interesting from both a story and a literary standpoint.
>>7491268
mostly right but Revelation is trash
>>7491393
Revelation has a checkered reputation because of what people, in particular American fundamentalists, have done in their ham-handed, linear-literal interpretation, but from a literary standpoint (such as its place within the genre of apocalyptic lit) it's pretty interesting.
>>7491405
That's a good point. At first I had all the Gospels under the first heading, including Mark for his urgency in telling the story and Matthew for his attention to continuity with the OT narrative, but I thought I might limit myself to one Gospel per heading.
>>7490702
Probably the best answer.
I would add Isaiah (for the Assyrian deportations) and Jeremiah (for the Babylonian deportations).
Speaking as a Christian, I might be a bit biased, but here goes:
Exodus, The Gospel of Luke, and Acts of the Apostles for the story. Job, Song of Solomon, and Revelation for writing.
Least interesting is definitely Numbers. It's literally a census record.
>>7490696
Least interesting: Song of Solomon or Leviticus.
>>7490981
1 & 2 Maccabees are pretty interesting desu.
Should I read Ecclesiasticus/any of the deuterocanonicals?
>>7492535
Ecclesiastes is a very short book and one of my favorites; it's well worth the read
>>7492687
Ah, my mistake. Just woke up and brain isn't yet functioning. I've only read Wisdom of Solomon and Esther from the apocrypha, the former of which I would definitely recommend. Im pretty certain that it's the first time that the serpent in the garden is explicitly referred to as being Satan
>>7492535
Ecclesiastes is top tier.
>>7492747
Expand.
>>7492657
I haven't gone through Ecclesiastes either. I'm gonna check it out now. Thanks!
>>7492809
fuck off bitch
paul tbhfam
>inb4 pleb/fedora memes
>>7492809
It's a beautiful exposition on the fleeting unsatisfactoriness of life.
>>7492895
Transient and cyclical.
My oh my. Ecclesiastes, you get me everytime
>>7492898
Yes, I think I'm going to reread it again.
>>7490696
E S T H E R
S
T
H
E
R
And Ecclesiastes.
Ecclesiastes is the mother and father of all philosophy more or less and a legitimately good text that even i as a fedoratheist from birth managed to dig into
>>7493273
>Ecclesiastes is the mother and father of all philosophy more or less
This
...is incorrect
>>7491540
>Least interesting is definitely Numbers. It's literally a census record.
This is pretty much one of my main reasons why I haven't read the Bible yet. I'm not sure if i'm okay with skipping entire "chapter" but this sounds so boring.
>>7493526
Read summaries of Leviticus and Numbers. Leviticus is an absolute slog. Other books will bore you as well but not as much as these
>>7493547
Isn't Leviticus just a codex of sorts? Even though I assume it's dry and boring, it still seems interesting as an document of lawmaking in Iron age or whenever it was written (Torah/Bible was supposedly first put together and written down under king David cca 500BC, but I'm not sure if Leviticus are from that era, or before that)
>>7493568
Leviticus is mostly an instruction manual on how to do rituals, the rest is autistically strict ancient jew laws
>>7493581
Maybe I'm an autist, but this seems interesting to me, like getting a glimpse of ancient Jew govermentality or something. On other hand Numbers being just census does sound incredibly boring (unless it's more than just names, like maybe place of birth, occupation and their possession, then it might be interesting).
>>7493526
what? you are an adult chosing to read a piece of text you wouldn't read otherwise. if you find a chapter where you can inmediately identify it's just names you skip it, if you look at it and just see numbers just skip it. you're not gonna memorize it, why would you read that? can't you do the most basic managing of your reading?
>>7493589
What can I say I'm an completist.
Also wikipedia's summary of Numbers make it sound really interesting:
>The people are numbered and preparations are made for resuming their march. The Israelites begin the journey, but they "murmur" at the hardships along the way, and about the authority of Moses and Aaron. For these acts, God destroys approximately 15,000 of them through various means. They arrive at the borders of Canaan and send spies into the land, but upon hearing the spies' fearful report concerning the conditions in Canaan the Israelites refuse to take possession of it, and God condemns them to death in the wilderness until a new generation can grow up and carry out the task. The book ends with the new generation of Israelites in the Plain of Moab ready for the crossing of the Jordan River.
>>7493526
Numbers may be tough, but has some pretty relevant parts, like the one in which God commands Moses to make a bronze serpent. This passage is important within the apologetics field and stuff like that.
>>7493596
I might try reading through the whole thing in just one day. Starting tomorrow.
>>7490712
Genesis and Acts for me story wise. The amount of crazy shit that happens in both is just great.
Hated numbers the most, Deuteronomy being a repeat was also awful.
Is it worth reading the apocrypha? Why were those books left out of the normal KJV?
>>7491268
I'd say all the gospels are interesting and good to read for the similarities and variations between them.
>>7491393
Revelation is super interesting it's just been ruined by people trying to predict doomsday with it all the time. It captures the spirit of how crazy celestial beings are supposed to be in the OT well
>>7490696
I haven't really seen Judges mentioned but I might've missed it. It's got some pretty fucked and awesome stories and is pretty short. Parts of it are simply hilarious for how bafflingly stupid people acted
>>7494701
KJV is a protestant translation if I'm not mistaken. Protestants do not read the deuterocanonicals.
>>7491540
Agreed. Was going through a book by book reading and numbers just broke me. Thank God for Joshua
Ecclesiastes
Revelation
Proverbs
>>7494735
What would if I wanted the read the most accurate translation?
>>7494745
Start with the Greeks
>>7494752
ENOUGH.
>>7494754
It's true tho
>>7491703
Why do Protestants reject those books so much? Are those the books that mention money being paid for sin or something?
>>7492809
Super philosophical for the Bible, almost nihilist sounding at a point
>>7493587
It's boring to me but it has an interesting pattern that I can't remember. It breaks up into codes of conduct, a priestly code, and purity and worship code if I recall correctly. The pattern I think comes with seven verses of commandments and a breakaway verse about Jewish misconduct.
>>7494771
>Why do Protestants reject those books so much?
Basically the Jews don't have it their canon so they don't either.
>Are those the books that mention money being paid for sin or something?
I don't think so.
>>7494771
The apocrypha basically suggested some catholic practices as being sound and, at the time, the Protestant church was trying to both sperate iself from Catholicism and paint itself as superior. Thus, they rejected some books in an attempt to look more exclusive and more pure. The KJV and Protestantism was all about cutting the fat
Is the KJV superior when it comes to literature? I mean, in comparison with other translations. Mr. Bloom recommends it.
>>7496813
Search the archive for more information, but the census on /lit/ is that albeit not the most accurate of translations, KJV is the best translation for someone reading the bible for purely literary reasons.
>>7496813
Get it with apocrypha for maximum superiority
>>7496844
among self centered anglos maybe
>>7492535
Ecclesiastes is essential, read it now
>>7496887
I did it yesterday, mate. Fantastic, indeed!
>>7496848
>translations
>>7496887
Ecclesiasticus, not Ecclesiastes
>>7492535
1 and 2 Maccabees are important for understand Jesus-era Judaism. 1 Maccabees especially has cool war scenes.
>>7497032
Have you ever even touched a Bible before?
>>7497070
I mean you're mistaking one book for another, anon was talking about Ecclesiasticus
>>7497023
>not realising some translations are great
>>7497070
lel filthy protestant detected
>>7497400
>not realising they're still translations
Job chapter 38 is amazing.
>>7497442
To be really honest I don't want anything to do with semitic languages familia
>>7497486
Edgy.
>>7497497
Matter of aesthetics to be fair.
>>7497400
>not realising Latin is shit
