Talk:Compline

Roman Scholars referenced in this article

I couldn't tell you off hand who's who without doing some digging, but I can tell you that the essential fact that are given in that section are the scholarly consensus on the historical development of the service -- You'll find the same things stated in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. I don't think that there is any Orthodoxizing that is needed for that section.

-Fr. John Whiteford 3-22-07

Ok, but I wasn't disputing the message so much as the sources. Could it be rewritten without citing obscure Catholic scholars, maybe? Gabriela 20:47, March 22, 2007 (PDT)

The only ways I could see doing it are to either greatly abbreviate the section, and to just state generally the broad consensus of scholars, or for someone to re-write it, and cite more recent scholars who have covered the same ground. The first option results in less information... and I think the information is useful and interesting. The second option would prehaps be an improvement, but you would still largely (if not exclusively) be talking about the findings of non-Orthodox scholars -- unless there is someone who is familiar with contemporary Greek scholarship on this issue, which have some uniquely Orthodox ideas on the matter. -Fr. John Whiteford 3-23-07

Our general practice has been to cite any scholarship which does not contradict Orthodox teaching, so long as it's credible. I've used the ODCC and the DEC for numerous articles, and their scholars are not always Orthodox (the latter has more than the former, of course). —Fr. Andrew ^talk contribs 05:18, March 23, 2007 (PDT)

We just have to recognize that much of the best contemporary scholarship on Byzantine liturgy is written by non-Orthodox scholars (e.g. Taft and others) - — FrJohn (talk)

I agree. I see using a broad base of scholarship to make these points as a strength, not a disadvantage.Paterakis 10:12, March 23, 2007 (PDT)

Point taken. Gabriela 20:29, March 23, 2007 (PDT)