I was just commenting on the fact that the term itself is a problematic one, in the context of what I said about Jews reading the Christian Bible. Sorry if I was unclear. Obviously, “Old Testament” is the generally accepted term, and barring any kind of serious historical reevaluation among Christians, it’s the term that’s going to stay.

Incidentally, “Torah” is only the first five books of the Old Testament, which are also known as the Pentateuch (Greek for “five parts”), and also known as the “Five Books of Moses,” since they were supposedly all written by Moses (which would be believable if they didn’t describe Moses’s death…).

Similarly, the Gospels are only the first four books of the New Testament.

For the very politically correct (which I am not, particularly), “Hebrew Bible” or “Tanakh” are the accepted terms for the Old Testament. Tanakh is a Hebrew acronym for the three categories of books in the OT — Torah (”teachings” — cosmogony, laws, history), Neviim (”prophets” — like Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, etc.), and Khetuvim (”books” or “writings” — includes things like Ruth, Esther, etc.).

One interesting thing is that there are books that are not part of the Western (=Roman Catholic/Protestant) Canon, but are part the Eastern Canon, and therefore inform Dostoevsky’s writing but are unknown to people in the West (including the historically Lutheran Swedes). These books are called “apocryphal” or “deuterocanonical” and include Tobit, Esdras, and other books as well as expanded versions of books which are part of the Western Canon, such as Daniel, which, in the East, includes very interesting stories like Bel and the Dragon, and the story of Susanna, which is fascinating. An American poet named Wallace Stevens wrote a poem called “Peter Quince at the Clavier” about the story of Susanna. I think it’s on Wikipedia. It’s a beautiful poem.

One interesting consequence of Dostoevsky’s popularity and influence in the West in the 20th century is that you see the introduction of typically Eastern and Russian Orthodox themes into artistic production in countries where those themes would ordinarily be totally foreign, like in the movies of Ingmar Bergman (”Winter Light” is about a country priest wrestling with his loss of faith) and even Akira Kurosawa (”Drunken Angel” is a very Dostoevskian story of redemption — he also made a movie version of “The Idiot”).

Anyway, I hope you get better soon.

Maybe I’m supressionist and also insulting Jews when I call it the “Old Testament” but that’s my choice. I make this choice since this makes it easier for me to keep the two books apart… Perhaps I should switch to calling them Torah and the Gospel instead? Would that be less supressionist and insulting?

Remember, the Gospels are books about a Jew written by Jews. Jesus was born and died a Jew. If Jesus had been alive in Germany during WWII, he would’ve wound up in the gas chambers along with all the other Jews.

More importantly, studying the New Testament, will give you insight into the themes of Dostoevsky’s novels. Josefina mentioned forgiveness as one, but that’s not really accurate. To really understand Dostoevsky, you have to understand that all his novels are really about only one thing: redemption. Forgiveness is a mechanism through which his characters achieve redemption, but it’s the redemption which is important. Forgiveness in and of itself isn’t that interesting. It’s the object of the forgiveness, the redemption made possible in the person being forgiven by that forgiveness, that’s at the heart of Dostoevsky’s novels, and — not coincidentally — at the heart of the story of Jesus (i.e., Jesus had to die in order to redeem humanity for its sins).

I’m not a Christian, by the way, so don’t think I’m trying to proselytize anyone here.

Anyway, Josefina is right when she says that Dostoevsky is first and foremost a Christian writer, so anyone who wants to read him should be very familiar with the New Testament, specifically in the context of Eastern and then Russian Orthodoxy.

Incidentally, calling it the “Old Testament” is an inherently supersessionist term and therefore kind of insulting to Jews. There’s nothing “old” about the Tanakh to them.

Thanks for taking the time to write this blog (even while you’re sick). I VERY much enjoyed reading your synopsis of this Dostoevsky novel. I also hope that you feel 100% better soon!

Congratulations on two years of blogging! Sadly, I have just discovered you, but have been enjoying your posts the last several weeks. I just started a Russian blog of my own - 2 years seems so far away!

Also, thanks for your advice to just practice practice practice!! For the last year or so, I have been attending a Russian conversation group and it has helped me improved so much!

Good Luck to you in the rest of your studies! I hope you keep blogging, whatever you do!

~Karyn