...I figure there must be some Orthodox doctrine about the Bible itself, and if so, then if you MUST also believe in doctrine (contrary to my supposition above), then I am confused based on the history of this conversation
The best way I can describe to you what the Orthodox Church teaches about the Bible is from the way it is worded in one of the articles on the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (GOARCH):
To put it another way: the Bible reveals God's perfect truth even tough it is expressed imperfectly
I think you will recognize my consistent approach towards the Scriptures in that statement.
The Orthodox Church does not have a specific 'dogma' about the Bible. The Old Testament was considered Scripture when the Apostles wrote their books, particularly the Septuagint (LXX) OT, form which they quote overwhelmingly.
The Church accepted all apostolic writings as Scripture from the beginning without any specific dogma (the real problem was discerning whihc writings that circulated in those days, were apostolic in authorship).
The "acceptance" was realized simply by reading apostolic books during the Divine Liturgy. If it was read in the church, by the decision of its bishop, it was assumed to be apostolic. Thus, the Bible is simply a product, a central one at that, of the life of the Church otherwise known as the Holy (or Sacred) Tradition.
Acceptance of the Bible by the original Church was not 'regulated' by dogma. It was simply accepted on tradition.
To put it another way: the Bible reveals God's perfect truth even though it is expressed imperfectly.
This is a difficult teaching for me because I can't reconcile imperfect expression with "God-breathed". I can't imagine why God wouldn't love us enough to give us perfect expression, since the imperfect always leads to error. I suppose you would say that's what the Church is for, but I still have trouble with the idea that God would build in error, just to let men be glorified by correcting it.
I think you will recognize my consistent approach towards the Scriptures in that statement.
I do.
Acceptance of the Bible by the original Church was not 'regulated' by dogma. It was simply accepted on tradition.
Actually, if I'm reading you correctly, that sounds closer to my view than to that of the Latins. How would you describe the value of Canonization? I think it was useful to formalize, but I don't think they were really breaking any new ground.