The Database of Religious History (DRH) “is a massive, standardized, searchable encyclopedia of the current best scholarly opinion on historical religious traditions and the historical record more generally.”
Much of the challenge the DRH tries to address is the volume of scholarly literature being produced on religious history and the difficulty of keeping current with it all.
You make some good points, Matthew. On your first query, certainly knowing something of the person behind the writing can be helpful. But for instance, we know next to nothing about the authors of Jude or Hebrews except through those writings (and of course theories about the identities of these authors among the early fathers). On this issue, I like Gadamer’s notion that getting into the mind of an author isn’t so important as getting into the (arguably more accessible) perspective within which the author’s views were formed. There’s no getting around the hermeneutical task even for authors contemporary to us (to say nothing of communication with those family members dearest to us). But I think Gadamer’s nuanced view of the author’s contribution to the interpretive process is helpful in thinking about questions like you pose here.
On your second query, DRH鈥攐r any other tool鈥攃ertainly isn’t and won’t ever be a one stop shop for everything for some of the reasons you mention. But we may still find it helpful. In answer to your question about the balance, though, I suppose I might point to the role of the audience. As Lloyd Bitzer pointed out, no author gets to determine a rhetorical situation simply by fiat without risking the argument falling flat. The situation is determined in dialog with the audience and is the rhetorical space鈥攐r ground that needs to be covered鈥攂etween the rhetor and the audience. So if an audience thinks something is critically relevant, it’s important to deal with that literature even if you might not otherwise. We never know what we don’t know, of course. But that’s where peer review can be helpful. We do our homework to account for the best scholarship we can with as much thoroughness as we can. And then if someone sees something relevant that we didn’t, we can take that feedback into account in revising our work. There might be some embarrassment when this happens, but if we stay focused on the quality of the research product rather than letting the steadiness of our identity get bound up with that product, we probably stand a better chance at recognizing areas for improvement in our own work more dispassionately. Though it’s written about a conference context, you might find this post’s similar reflections useful further developments of this point.
Thanks again so much for your queries. Enjoying the dialog. :-)