Or is it really just a subset of Sacred Tradition?
I ask for two reasons:
The canon of Scripture, whatever denomination you are, did not fall out of the sky. The Church had to recognise it. As far as I can tell, there are no criteria for Scripture being Scripture: this is purely a declaration of the Church, that carried little import - and in some Churches still isn’t all that important - until Luther made an issue of it.
According to the Catechism - and Dei Verbum, which the CCC quotes: “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.” But only the original Old and New Testaments were “put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit”, right?
We do not have the originals. And we do not even know if we have perfect copies of the originals. We have thousands of manuscripts with thousands of - granted, minor - variances between them each. Ergo, we cannot be sure we have even a copy of the original writings. (Think about the meticulous measures Jews and Moslems go to preserve their Scriptures.) Ergo, we must compare the different copies to reach a sense of what the original must have been.
Ergo, the different manuscripts and our attempts to understand what’s original and what’s not, is not an exercise of Scripture but of Tradition.
Furthermore, translation involves interpretation, and no translation or interpretation is inspired - unless it is in conformity with Tradition. Therefore, all Bibles are really exercises in Tradition - or the interpretation of Sacred Scripture, rather than Scripture itself.
Therefore, practically speaking, we do not have Scripture, but only Tradition, to guide us.
Does this sound right? Or am I missing something?