I'm neither an academic nor a practicing Christian or Jew. I guess I mainly qualified "Bible" with "Christian" because just writing "the Bible" has some ambiguous implications, like am I referring to a particular translation, and am I putting Christian scriptures above all others?

I could've refrained from capitalizing "Bible" too, but I don't have a specific set of style rules in mind.

In fact, I would've been reading a translation that's relatively modern, not one of the most common ones, and definitely not King James. But I don't recall exactly.

"Hebrew Bible" is often used in secular academia in preference to "Old Testament." "Christian Bible" is the "New Testament" counterpart to that.

It's an English word, and calling other religions' core texts the "X Bible" as in "Mohammedan Bible" (Webster's 1913) used to happen, but is out of fashion as it's seen as culturally insensitive, or at least inaccurate (I'd quibble with "inaccurate" in a very few cases, but sure, it harms little to avoid that usage and probably is a net-improvement).

Christianity having been the closest thing to a "native" religion for the English language since... well, since before it was English, means that other religions don't use that term, including those that pre-date the spread of Christianity in Europe (there wasn't English yet, then). That's if those had "a book", which they didn't.

The closest thing another religion might do would probably be to call their text "the book", in some other language—but, it's also the case that most religions don't have a book. There's no single Buddhist, or Hindu book of scripture. Animist religions or indigenous religions of the Americas don't tend to have one. The Greeks and Romans didn't, nor does it seem to be the case that the Egyptians or Sumerians did.

Part of this is because having a book requires... books. To exist. The codex wasn't invented until well after most of these religions came into being, and, notably, Christians didn't seem to get worked up about creating a book and about canonicity and all that (a trunk of scrolls is less fixed than a bound volume and won't be copied or distributed as one body, so the implicit demand that its contents be in some sense complete or authoritative or similar in stature, isn't there) until the codex came around.

It's probably worth noting at this point that the English word "Bible" comes to the language explicitly as a Christian term (i.e. we'd likely not have the word at all, but for Christianity), from the Koine Greek for... drumroll... the books. Plural! This reflects the volume's nature as a collection of works that had once been disconnected.

What's the big exception to these religions that predate codices/books? Islam! Books already existed when they got started. And, sure enough, from the beginning, they have a concept of a book, perhaps to a greater degree than any other religion. And, indeed, they refer to other major "Abrahamic" religions (Judaism and Christianity, chiefly but not quite exclusively) as "people of the book" (and yes, the word is just "the book" in Arabic—I double-checked, the word in the phrase is the same given as a translation for simply "the book")

They shy away from calling their book "the book", however, instead calling it "the recitation", relating back to how they believe it was revealed and composed—Cf. referring to The Revelation of St. John as simply "Revelation" (or, commonly but a tad erroneously, "Revelations").

It may, in fact, be significant that the focus on a book progresses with the three major Abrahamic religions: Judaism is a hyper-literate religion, but places less focus on a single book than those who follow (the traditional presentation of the Torah is still as a scroll, and, I gather, that typically does not include the rest of what Christians would call the Old Testament); Christians are so big on the One Book that they had to figure out a way to awkwardly smash as much Judaism as they saw fit onto the beginning of theirs, and, to not a small degree, their compiling a book from what had been a competing and disconnected set of tales marks the beginning of the path toward modern forms of Christianity; while Islam is, to put it mildly, very into their one book and have been from the beginning—it's the absolute heart of their religion, it's the whole deal, it is entirely complete and flawless, it is unchanging and has never been changed a bit (hm... OK, sure, it's religion, so, whatever), and even reading it in translation is seen as a tad suspect—God gave them a book, more or less, and that's how important the book is. They have lore and practices and commentaries and all that, beyond the book, but they are extremely book-centric. It's possible the very form of these religions reflect, in part, the literary technology available at the time, which is kinda neat.

So, yeah, after all that, how do you feel about my terminology?

I didn't call the scripture of any other religion a Bible, and I read your wall of text as a lukewarm endorsement but you may have been thinking the opposite.