For works conceded to be of major importance, I have no problem reading them. There has been such a boom in translation of Russian, Greek, and Romanian works in Orthodoxy, combined with the vast majority of scholars speaking English, that it's almost a non-factor to speak those languages.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/12/doing-math.html#comments
Orthodox theologians have been composing and writing commentaries on Scripture long before Protestants ever existed (and they continue to do so though most today aren’t in English because most Orthodox theologians are not natural English speakers).
http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/?s=monadic
Oh, dear! Who am I supposed to believe? Should I take Perry's word for it? Or Prejean's?
We report, you decide.
:::BRAAAPPP!!!:::
ReplyDeleteThere's that whole "at the same time in the same sense" part of the Law of Non-Contradiction that you seem to be missing. Patristics works have been translated in large numbers. General theological works by later theologians have been translated in large numbers. Scriptural commentaries by later Orthodox theologians have not been translated with such zeal. Perry and I are both correct.
ReplyDeleteYou must really be desperate to get something to actually hit our position with a much flailing as you are doing. That didn't even come near the mark.
Nice try.
ReplyDelete1. Since you can't read these commentaries, you don't know what you're missing.
2. This is a debate over alternative exegesis as well as alternative exegetical grids. modern Greek Orthodox commentaries are obviously germane to the debate.
3. I assume that a modern Greek Orthodox (or Russian Orthodox) commentary would also be in dialogue with the Orthodox tradition generally. So this is also germane to the debate.
Hence, my original point stands: you lack the linguistic equipment to either know your way around the primary sources or important secondary literature.
1. Since you can't read these commentaries, you don't know what you're missing.
ReplyDeleteTrue. Since none of the Orthodox patristics scholars that I read rely on them, it isn't of great importance.
2. This is a debate over alternative exegesis as well as alternative exegetical grids. modern Greek Orthodox commentaries are obviously germane to the debate.
Only if I were comparison shopping among methods of exegesis. I am not. I am merely rebutting the charge that there is only one way to do exegesis. The fact that Perry (and Eastern Orthodox theologians) have yet another exegetical method merely proves my point all the more clearly.
3. I assume that a modern Greek Orthodox (or Russian Orthodox) commentary would also be in dialogue with the Orthodox tradition generally. So this is also germane to the debate.
Yes, but modern critical methodologies are least important in the Orthodox methods of exegesis, so one also has to factor in the difference. But as I said, I'm not shopping around for alternative methods of exegesis.
Hence, my original point stands: you lack the linguistic equipment to either know your way around the primary sources or important secondary literature.
Since my point all along has been that historical methodology and Scriptural exegesis are two different disciplines, you haven't shown anything of the sort. Guess you'll have to try again.
Shouldn't Triablogue be devoting equal time to refuting Postjean and Ajean?
ReplyDelete