Hi Geoff
Thanks for contextualising my comments.
Ñāṇa wrote:The Protestant Reformation arose in the specific social, cultural, religious, and historical context of Europe at the time. It was a necessary development. And while some of the fruits of the Protestant Reformation and the European Enlightenment -- such as text critical analysis, etc. -- are new to Buddhism...
Yes, in the same way, modern Buddhism arose in the specific social, cultural, religious, and historical context of the nineteenth-twentieth centuries. Some of the wider conditions influencing the development of modern Buddhism were the 'Victorian crisis of faith', the tensions between the colonial rulers and the people of Asian Buddhist cultures, the conflicting interests and authorities of Western scholars of Buddhism and indigenous monastics, and the need for both 'Eastern' and 'Western' cultures to come to grips with the challenges of modernity. These conditions have shaped the ways in which Buddhism is understood both in the West and in traditional Buddhist societies--the renewed emphasis on the Pali Canon was prompted by such conditions.
Again, I am not trivialising the Pali Canon as such, but merely pointing out the need to be historically reflexive even as we commit ourselves to upholding the Canon. I'm not accusing anyone in particular but I think it is important not to regard our modern interpretation as a kind of 'unmediated' access to what the Canon means, as if our (conventional, mundane) modes of understanding could step outside time, bypassing the filters of history to capture the understanding of the Buddha's time. We could of course, given what evidence we have, make carefully considered, well-informed interpretations of what the understanding was back then. But at the end of the day, we are still reading the canon from where we are: the present. To be clear, I am not trivialising our understanding of the Canon today but simply suggesting that we acknowledge the situated-ness of our understanding 'as it is'--a maxim of the path I'm committed to honour.
So what I'm trying to share is that acknowledging the situated-ness and historically-contingent nature of understanding does not make our commitment to the Dhamma or the wisdom which we now read in the Canon any less 'valid' or 'effective'. In fact, it would keep us on our toes, guard against complacency, and remind us not to take things for granted.
Ñāṇa wrote:... other ideas, such as not merely accepting the authority of verbal testimony, are embedded in the suttas themselves (even if this injunction hasn't always been appreciated).
As already mentioned, the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta informs us that the onus is on each practitioner
to compare what teachers say with what is presented in the canon, in order to check the veracity of these sayings and interpretations with the dhamma and vinaya.
We can see again the risk of placing too much emphasis on the Word/Logos if the bit I highlighted is read narrowly and taken out of the wider context of the path. BUT, I fully agree with you that this need not be the case, that the path itself has certain 'failsafe mechanisms' to prevent this. My understanding is--and I think this is what you and others are pointing to as well--the referencing of the suttas should always be positioned within a wider matrix of practices which includes consultations with the wise, companionship with admirable friends, the performance of dana, and bhavana in its various forms. To my understanding, when the study of the canon is situated within this matrix of practice (which is always historically specific) the truths of Buddhism are demonstrated not so much in texts but in the
enactment of those truths.
Thanks again for your post, it has helped to clarify my thinking. Much appreciated.
for your insightful posts which express extremely well the way I see many of these issues surrounding the the interpretation and implementation of the Dhamma. 
