I don't think there any Orthodox theologians who have written much about prima scriptura
per se, since it is, in general, a rather Western point of interest. The two writers who have come the closest (since they think about the nature of Tradition itself and its relationship to ecclesial authority/life) are Schmemann and Florovsky. In this category, perhaps we could also include the correspondence of Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople with the German Reformers (1573-1581), in which Patriarch Jeremiah discusses sola scriptura
and Tradition (Fr. George Mastrantonis has translated this correspondence into English and it is available from Holy Cross Orthodox Press -- quite worth the read).
Schememann, of course, is famous for defining Tradition in Eucharistic and holistic terms (as a multiplicity of sources, a great current of Tradition, of which Scripture is a part -- see http://www.schmemann.org/byhim/orthodoxchurch.html
). Florovsky does similar things, but emphasizes the charismatic (as opposed to historical) nature of Tradition. Thus, these 20th Century types (including Lossky) tend to define Tradition as "the movement of the Holy Spirit through the ages."
This view technically disqualifies prima scriptura
, but, as Yves Congar pointed out, the Scripture still enjoys a de facto
primacy. We tend to appeal to it first, in other words.
Anyway, prima scriptura
itself is really just a spiffed-up name for perennial Protestant slogans (i.e. a more accurate description of what Protestants THOUGHT they were doing with sola scriptura
). Sola Scriptura is, by definition, impossible, unless one wants to simply read the Scriptures without any interpretation, application or understanding. Any "reading" requires an interpretation and that interpretation requires something more than the text (e.g. the reader's mind, thoughts, understanding, influences, etc.). This book review points this out quite well (http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9901/reviews/charles.html
Wells sees the Reformation divide as the necessary starting—point for moral theology, given the Reformers’ commitment to sola scriptura. It is not with the priority of Scripture that this reviewer takes issue, but rather with evangelicals’ understanding and application of the sola scriptura slogan. Scripture is authoritative in every age and cultural context. Yet, in every age and cultural context Scripture must be interpreted, consensually, by the Christian community. Thus, Scripture never exists sola; rather, it is understood and interpreted via the collective wisdom of the Christian church in all ages and communions. For this reason, it is more appropriate to speak of prima scriptura—which more adequately represents historic Christian orthodoxy while preserving Scripture’s normative place in doing moral theology.
Even Baptists appeal to their conscience, prayer life, Luther, the Reformers, Billy Graham, Francis Schaefer, their pastor, their professor of exegesis, their Study Bible, lesson plans and/or their Hendrickson Bible Dictionary.
Anyway, here's some tangentially-related EO sources, if you want them:
G. Florovsky. Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View
. Belmont, Mass., 1972.
V. Lossky. "Tradition and Traditions", in In The Image and Likeness of God
, ed. J.H. Erickson and T.E. Bird, Crestwood, N.Y., 1974, pp. 141-168.
J. Meyendorff. "The Meaning of Tradition," in Living Tradition
, pp. 13-26.
And, as always, for Schmemann:http://www.schmemann.org/