The Church's book

This is a sequel to this post:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/05/bishops-and-bible.html

Does the Bible charter the community of faith, or does the community of faith charter the Bible? Protestants take the former position while Catholics take the latter position.

Catholics typically say the Bible is “The Church’s book.” According to them, “The Church” produced the Bible, “The Church” decided which books to canonize, and “The Church” interprets the Bible.

This attitude is paralleled by many other faith-communities that have a sacred book or books which identify their faith-community and distinguish their faith-community from other faith-communities. Muslims have the Koran, Zoroastrians have the Avesta, Hindus have the Gita, Vedas, and Upanishads, Sikhs have the Adi Granth, Moonies have the Divine Principle, Mormons have the Pearl of Great Price, Swedenborgians have the Arcana Cœlestia, Adventists have The Great Controversy, &c.

When you consider the view of the Bible promulgated by the USCCB in the NABRE, there’s nothing special about the Bible that sets it apart; rather, the church of Rome makes the Bible something special.

For instance, given the view of Daniel in the NABRE introduction, would it make any difference if the church of Rome rejected Daniel and accepted 1 Enoch instead?

At this point the Catholic canon isn’t fundamentally different from the Sikh canon, the Zoroastrian canon, or the Swedenborgian canon. Each faith-community has its own scriptures. What makes them “sacred Scripture” isn’t something unique to that particular book or set of books, but the communal ascription. It’s not the scriptures that define the community, but the community that defines the scriptures. Not the scriptures that differentiate one faith-community from another, but the respective-faith community that differentiates which book or books will constitute its canon. It could be Marvel Comic books.