I would like to add some methodical comments about the scholarly approach…
For one, I try to (and sometimes certainly forget) to differentiate between the Buddha and the EBT. We can investigate relatively well what the texts say - which means that we can investigate what an edited corpus of texts of different lineages of transmissions say. Just as in @JimInBC’s example, we can approach the context of the Isaiah transmission, but that doesn’t automatically mean that we know what the historical Isaiah said.
The second point goes to @Bundokji’s argument of scholarly ‘solipsism’, or maybe rather ‘scholarly deliberate ignorance of sources outside the EBT’. This to me is clearly a fundamental misrepresentation of the scholarly approach. For example, I actually try to reference as many non-Buddhist sources as possible, especially Vedic and sources slightly later than the Buddha, i.e. the lawbooks of the Dharma Sutras and the Arthasastra. Scholars like Analayo, Choong, and Bingenheimer compare with Chinese and Tibetan texts. In a way even the Vinaya can serve as an ‘outside’ to the suttas. Schopen, Falk, and others consider epigraphic sources. Bronkorst, Sarao and others try to consider larger historical, social, and migration influences on our understanding of the texts. Scholars like Gethin and Allon consider the influences of oral transmission to the content transmitted. And so on.
So, as I see it, the scholarly approach is not simply focusing on the texts, quite the opposite. What ‘we’ try to limit is the influence of intuition and guesswork. I wouldn’t want to enforce the conclusions of scholars onto faith-based followers. But I find a position for exmaple like “The Buddha surely wanted to abolish slavery, even if none of the texts say it” hard to maintain if the underlying assumptions are not clearly laid out.