It really depends on who you mean by the "academic religious community." That's a varied group. A large number of professional Bible scholars in the United States are what we would call "theologically conservative," meaning their personal beliefs follow more or less standard Christian (usually Protestant) theological thought, including a commitment to the Bible as the Word of God. That can but doesn't always include some spectrum of scriptural inerrancy or infallibility. Others fall into various levels of theologically liberal, all the way to completely non-Christian. I'm leaving out Jews here, because these kinds of questions are very different in a Jewish context.

Among theogically liberal Christians, the Bible tends to be important as a source for theological inspiration and teaching, but isn't necessarily the last word. Non-Christians tend to fall on the opposite spectrum, where the far end is concerned with debunking the text in a way that somewhat mirrors theologically conservative attempts to prove it.

Amid all of this, and especially coming out of Germany in the mid-20th century, there was a strong drive among mainline Protestants to preserve the biblical text as an important record of Jesus and salvation history, but also to make it palatable to post-Enlightenment sensibilities by stripping it of the miraculous, "primitive," and "mythic." Bultmann and the form critics were really invested in this project, and in its extremes it leads to things like "the story comes from an eye-witness account, but the disciples only thought Jesus was walking on water, because on the right section of the lake, under the right weather and light conditions, an optical illusion would make it look that way even if he were actually ankle-deep." That's an actual peer-reviewed paper I read once. Luckily there's been a lot less of that in the past few decades.

Since the 80s or 90s, there's been growing recognition of the importance of ancient social and historical contexts. Under these models, the biblical text is entirely a product of its social mileiu, and any modern theological value needs to be treated as a separate use. You still see work along all the familiar spectra, but it's much more difficult to cater to the extremes either of theological conservatives or hard-line anti-Christians, because those methods aren't asking questions about the accuracy or theology of the text or tradition, but about the environments they came out of. There are dedicated Christians doing this kind of work, but in my experience a lot of them tend to treat their academic engagement with the Bible as separate from their spiritual beliefs and experiences, which at least functionally aligns most of them with theologically liberal thought.

To address your question about "other texts," that also depends on which ones and who you're talking about. I've known scholars that got a lot of their personal theology from later writers like Justin and Origen, rather than the Bible alone. I've known people who retreated from traditional Christianity and adopted at least some Gnostic ideas (though I don't think I've met any professing Sethians among the PhD crowd). I've known people who considered apocryphal texts like Acts of Thecla or Shepherd of Hermas as just as meaningful and helpful, spiritually, as the canon. There's no single answer to your question.

I think the word your missing is theology and theologian. Most people who get seriously into the study of Christianity from either a religious or a secular point of view don't just read and re-read the bible they also read theologians and learn about what different denominations and philosophers think the bible means, but before I go into that I'd like to make two clarifications.

First The Bible is thought to be the be all and end all of Christianity by certain protestant denominations and it is not considered to be infallible by some protestants and most non protestants including the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, and many smaller Eastern Churches. Second The Catholic Church bases it's teachings on what it views as canonical scripture and sacred tradition. So in the Catholic tradition the Bible is only part of the equation and how to use it has passed down through tradition and the continuing church. So from a Catholic perspective the teaching of how to use the bible is just as important as what is in the Bible.

To explore what these teaching are and upon reading your question the two texts I thought of were the Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas which overviews Catholics theology, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church which is a summary of Catholic teaching. For both but for the second especially you'll want to read them with a commentary to explain the reasoning for these teachings and beliefs.

From your question I would recommend you look at some of the writings of the early church fathers. You mention the compilation of the Bible in your question, well we actually know a lot about that! We know a fair bit about the debates that went into compiling the canon and we have letters and texts from Christian theologians and thinkers that predate the compilation of the bible that gives a sense of what early Christian’s thoughts and beliefs were and why they chose what they chose to put in the Bible. And most denominations accept most of the Church fathers as influential and worth reading. I'm not confident enough to suggest a specific book, but if I was you, I'd post a question on r/AcademicBible asking for recommendations for a book on the compilation of Biblical canon and selected texts of the early church fathers. You might consider posting this question there as well.

Finally, you might also consider looking at the writings of some protestant theologians such as Martin Luther as well, if you belong to a specific denomination look up what theologians were big in its philosophy and see what they have to say!