Actually, the Church can rightfully claim authorship at of least the New Testament, because all authors of the New Testament were Christians. Surely you'd agree the Church is competent to recognize its own! But the Church is also the author of the codex you call the Christian Bible, as the selection of books that were to be read exclusively was made by the Church hierarchy.
The banal argument that the body of believers gradually came to accept the correct books that we have today is not supported by historical documents. It is a myth. And while it is true that some three hundred years after Christ most local churches contained almost all the books of the Christian Bible, they also contained many heretical ones which is a detail most Christian apologetics today choose to ignore or don't know.
The early Christian alphabet soup had many letters in it, not only those used today but also numerous others that are no longer used, because there was no uniformly agreed upon Christian dogma.
Historical evidence shows without any serious challenge to the contrary that the Catholic Church hierarchy, through its episcopal authority, spooned out everything it didn't consider fit for reading in that soup, and that this was done in a series of episcopal council meetings in the fourth century—but only after the very same Church set in stone the Christian dogma (the First and Second Ecumenical Councils of the 4th century).
So the selection was made in accordance with the Church dogma, which is based on the Holy Tradition (understanding here that the Greek word paradosis doesn't mean tardition in the modern Engish sense of the word), which is itself base don the Aposotlic faith passed on by the succesisve bishops, and their collecitve interpretation of the scriptures, and in accordance with the way the Church worshiped (lex orandi, lex credendi), since the Eastern liturgical service of today (The Divine Liturigies of SS. Basil and John Chrysostom) reflect and coincide with that time period of theological and canonical consolidation of Christian faith directly by the Church authority.
So, the theological basis and the actual codification of the Christian Bible to the exclusion of all other books took place in the Catholic Church and under Catholic Church's episcopal authority, and not, as the Protestants confabulate, through some sui generis "spiritual" guidance of the lay believers.
So, it is really disingenuous for the Protestants to insist that the Church has no spiritual authority when it comes to scriptures, when it is clear that the they accept, by necessity, the decision of the Church as to what constitutes Christian canon.
Well, you are dealing with individual writings as well as a compilation, and although the writings themselves were not the work of a committee, it is true that the church whose members penned these books and who complied which books it considered worthy of publishing with the Divine stamp could claim a type of copyright status. Likewise bodies of Jews could, regarding those books they held as Scripture, in particular the Law and the whole Palestinian canon, which the writings that the church held to as Scripture indicates Jesus held to, (Luke 24:44, etc.) and to whom it says the covenants, the giving of the law and the service of God and the promises pertained.
And consistent with this, those who complied somewhat differing NT lists could be considered authors, while what the whole compilation would consist of was not finally, fully decisively settled for RC's until Trent, as we have hitherto discussed.
However, while your here points can be basically acknowledged, there is more to it than the instrumentality by which Scriptures were codified.
So the selection was made in accordance with the Church dogma, which is based on the Holy Tradition
And what most essentially gave Holy Tradition its authority? What was its basis?
The banal argument that the body of believers gradually came to accept the correct books that we have today is not supported by historical documents. It is a myth
It certainty is not that simple, but what is a myth is a bunch of men sitting around and deciding what would make the best novel. There certainly was an ecclesiastical process which most are ignorant of, but I posit that both the selection and enduring acceptance of the books which are most universally held to be Scripture was essentially due to an inherent quality of these writings, including its conflation with the prior established scriptures, and the faith of its accompanying Tradition, and its effects when believed. Therefore not only church fathers but those who could ask our Scriptures came to progressively realize what was manna from heaven. While the FDA may put its stamp of approval on certain things, their enduring popularity is due to their effects.
And while it is true that some three hundred years after Christ most local churches contained almost all the books of the Christian Bible, they also contained many heretical ones which is a detail most Christian apologetics today choose to ignore or don't know.
True, and Jesus said that the tares most be allowed to grow along with the wheat, and by comparison with writings that were was previously established as Divine, among other factors, helped to separate the two has concerns their ultimate author.
So, the theological basis and the actual codification of the Christian Bible to the exclusion of all other books took place in the Catholic Church and under Catholic Church's episcopal authority, and not, as the Protestants confabulate, through some sui generis "spiritual" guidance of the lay believers.
It certainly would be a mistake to imagine the latter, as it also would be to suppose that it was they who gave these writings their real authority and appeal, and that these choices to place apart from the qualities of these writings and their effects and appeal to believers. If so, they contradict what the very writings they agreed upon testify of, as well as multitudes more since that time, without constraint or compulsion.
So, it is really disingenuous for the Protestants to insist that the Church has no spiritual authority when it comes to scriptures, when it is clear that the they accept, by necessity, the decision of the Church as to what constitutes Christian canon.
No, as while the church corporate was responsible for the writing of New Testament Scripture, and its councils for,the compilation of all books which it holds as constituting it, this presumes
1. that being the instruments through whom Scripture is written, and being the stewards of it renders them to be assuredly infallible autocratic interpreters of it, as Rome effectively supposes it is, rather than themselves being subject to it, which the Lord Jesus showed the Pharisees they were to be. Consistent with the authorship/stewardship=authority logic, than the first Christians should have submitted to the Jews. Which you probably agree with.a
2. that the authority of the early church is established by formal historical lineage, rather than scriptural faith, which Scripture attests is the case. It was the error of the Pharisees who presumed that their lineage made them sons of Abraham, but which both the Baptist and Lord Jesus reproved. (Mt. 3:9; Jn. 8:44)
Clearly, he [Luke] togive all credit to himself and other humans, but not to God.
I put this here because it is related to your consistent rejection of God working through men, making it all their work. Certainly this was not the understanding of Luke. (Acts 1:1-3)