I got my first Orthodox Study Bible about a month ago and have slowly been reading through the extras. Tobit was wild, 1 Maccabees seems like weirdly placed war stories ๐ค The study notes are few... I don't know what I'm supposed to make of the extras.
Discussion
It's been a struggle to read through them actually.. Tackling them seems to have made me less interested in the Bible where I used to have a much healthier interest.
I felt that way initially, i believe it was because i was proud of having read the bible cover to cover multiple times as a protestant and now i had to admit to letting go of my 'trophy' if you will. Orthodoxy has a lot to it, little treasures hidden everywhere waiting to be found. I am not as rigorous as i was before in my scripture consumption, however my prayer life has exploded and i understand that it doesnt fall on my shoulders to intellectually discern new doctrines i believe im discovering for the first time in Christian history ๐. Reading the lives of the saints, and history while daily doing a short scripture breakfast has become the new norm.
I get the 'little treasures' thing listening to The Lord of Spirits Podcast was full if them and the reason I wandered into an Orthodox Church.
I've read a few of the non-canonical books hanging around in the first century Jewish communities, Enoch being the most memorable. They never lessened my interest in the Bible though.
It sounds like I have to go back and read Esther and Daniel.
I was raised Protestant but I haven't considered myself that for some time... I'm probably just a heretic with little beliefs from all over the Christian world view and practices.
I still have to attempt to reconcile other Orthodox beliefs and practices... I'm a proper pacifist though which is why Macabbes is a hard pill to swallow. I also believe blind following of any human being is immoral so the hierarchy gets me confused. And Jesus said to call no man Father so ๐ค
But I am just here trying to reconcile these things.
No worries, there is maturity in the position you are in. I was inquiring into orthodoxy for a year and a half before deciding to go through the catechumen process. There were several things that were hard to swallow, but having changed my mind within the protestant world so many times, i recognized that several times in the past i was disagreeing with something because of a limited understanding of the topic. I found that orthodoxy often uses the same words but the words dont mean the same thing that they do within protestantism. There are several books i would recommend, I always think that the best way to learn someones position isnt to ask someone who disagrees with that position, but someone who holds to it. Should be an obvious conclusion, but youd be surprised how many people take what Macarthur says about orthodoxy as the final authority, Lord bless him ๐ . I have an online folder i cam share with you if interested. One book is called "Know the Faith", which deals with objections like the one you mentioned, intercession of the saints, mary is a big hurdle, etc.
Maccabees is interesting in several doctrinal ways. It shows the origin of the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah and how praying FOR the dead is shown to be a practice. Daniel and the Dragon, and the Three Holy Children are extra chapters that give us extra details on the lives of daniel, Shadrak, meeshak, and abendego (not going to even pretend i spelled those right ๐ ). Tobit was a beautiful love story of the providence of God working outside of time, hearing the prayers of individuals and going back in time and working out details in the past, this has implications for praying for those who lived a less than holy life. Then of course the extra chapters of esther, the only book in the protestant bible that doesnt once mention God oddly enough. Well, that is definitely not true of the unredacted story.
In regards to what to make of it, its important to know that the early church saw these books as legitimate scripture, that was sufficient for me. Luther had issues with certain doctrines and would have started redacting books in the new testament like James had it not been for a friend of his to speak reason to him. Id rather trust the church than a man who was so convinced of a single point of doctrine that he was willing to delete chunks of the bible to make it work, calling the epistle of james an "epistle of straw" at one point. While I respect him for seeking moral purity in the church, there are several other issues that we cant really overlook. Youll know a tree by its fruit right?
I don't trust the church, neither one man.
That makes it even harder for me to trust the bible.
I find it easier to trust the Bible than any one man... People in communities lived and died to keep the words of God... Now any one man who wants to interpret them for me is suspect under lots of conditions.
Yeah, but who defines what is the bible?
Doesn't bother me... I've read the Bible lots and a bunch of the other hebrew texts from the second temple period.
I don't know much about early church history, but my understanding is that councils came together and discovered which texts churches across large swaths of territory were using in common and compiled them into what we now know as the orthodox Bible... Maybe the catholics have the same one? I dunno, I was raised protestant and don't know much.