This is interesting, is there a concerted effort at working through this, or is it still in the stage where it's just someone here and there who takes an interest and works on it (perhaps? as a labor of love)? Would it be correct to assume that the Oriental Orthodox are more open to diversity in theology (if not dogma) than the Eastern Orthodox or Catholics? I have wondered about that, but the Oriental Orthodox have also seemed more conservative in some things, so I thought maybe I was misunderstanding.
At the moment, and I'm speaking for the Coptic Church here, our Church members are most likely to focus on pre-Chalcedonian figures to answer these questions. Every once in a while, we might even have a writing from St. Severus, but usually his letters that are available for translation to us ends up just quoting from pre-Chalcedonian fathers anyway. Perhaps, one can say St. Severus is one of the very first Church fathers who quotes long passages from earlier church fathers to answer various questions, as opposed to giving his own opinion on things.
I think though, if you are able to read very old archaic Arabic, you'll be able to read some of the writings of our medieval Coptic theologians, like Abba Boulos al Bushi, the sons of Al-Assal, Abba Severus of Al-Ashmumein, and maybe some more later bishops and priests' writings (ever since Coptic started dying down basically). The problem is the more contemporary the Arabic writings, the more "incomplete" and truly in "Western captivity" it was. So for those who have a hard time with archaic Arabic, the more recent Arabic carried sad theological consequences
For our conservative stance, this probably comes from the canons of the sons of Al-Assal, among other notable Coptic theologians:http://ccdl.libraries.claremont.edu/cdm/ref/collection/cce/id/1456
There was a translation of them somewhere in coptichymns.net, but that site is down, and all the stuff in there should be moved to lacopts.org sometime soon. If I find the canon collection, I'll share them with you. They are a very interesting set of canons, and indeed we see them practiced a lot today. It has been told that Safi ibn al Assal first heard a lot of them from a Nestorian bishop. It's very possible that many of our canons we may adopt from other churches as well. I was pleasantly surprised to find that there are Byzantine canons against any cleric that goes swimming for instance. That is strictly followed by our church!
What do you think the obstacles have been, and perhaps still are? Diversity of languages (and difficult ones at that), operating under difficult circumstances (Muslim, etc.), trained theologians who have time to devote to such things rather than ministering to a flock, just general interest in such things, or...?
Ever since the 10th century, the Coptic/Greek languages started to die down. Coptic Christians have become more Arab speaking, and the first Coptic pope ever to "Arabacize" the Church was Pope Gabriel, I or II, I forget which one, I think II more likely because it was after him we had quite a "renaissance" of Copto-Arabic theologians. But what is unique is that they were also scholastic in nature due to the Islamic culture (which is also scholastic in nature until today). I find it also interesting that it is around this very same time Moses Maimonides also developed his systemic "scholastic" Jewish theology as well for the Judeao-Arabic tradition. But in any case, these fathers, while known, are not necessarily highly read. I know one friend of mine, excellent Arabic reader, and would have a very difficult time reading and understanding these writings.
We also had some periods of persecution and mass conversion because of extremely high Jizya taxes, and corruption increased in the church. So the Church seemed to be on survival mode for quite some time, more than a theological mode. This left a huge gap until much later when we were exposed to missionaries. This is where Western captivity started creeping in.
But here we are...we survived. So we're in a period of reassessment and renaissance, and this all started by the newly canonized St. Habib Girgis.
Also, what do Oriental Orthodox make of theologians and saints of the Eastern Orthodox or Catholics who are post-division, but who nonetheless still seem to have much to offer (especially if, in cases like that of St. Maximos the Confessor, the theology is largely grounded in earlier fathers)? Is it like how the Eastern Orthodox view post-schism Catholic theologians/saints with a wary eye, or more accepting, or less, or...?
Some of their writings have crept in. One in particular I can think of is Bishop John of Damascus. His writings became available in Arabic, and it seems we used him as a source, but with a wary mind understanding he is Chalcedonian. But from what I can gather, St. John Chrysostom (pre-Chalcedonian) was actually very popularly translated as well, and he was very influential in the Coptic Church during these times as well. I can't think of any other EO sources, but if there are any, it's probably canonical in nature, as I mentioned before.