The documents contained in the Tanakh (Old Testament) are without noticeable variation in all the ancient manuscripts (and codices) we have. Compare to this the fact that in the so-called "New Testament" collection of writings it is not hard to find hundreds and hundreds of variations and mistakes. No two ancient New Testament documents are the same (and then most are only portions of the present Christian writings). The differences between the Jewish Bible and the Christian New Testament are not just the quality and intent of the (writers and) scribes, but the "theological" diversity is enormous! When I read how particular the Jewish sages and scribes were in the transmission of the Jewish texts I was astounded.
The writings of the Hebrew canon were seen as sacred early, and treated as such. Even though there were factions within the Yahwistic Faith, the scrolls were held above human agendas once the text was established. Men devoted their lives (the Masoretes, as example) to making sure that letter, and later, vowel-point, accent, and scribal notations were worthy of the sacred nature of the words. To say they were meticulous is an understatement.
Christianity/Paulinism has always been polemic and apologetic, and highly splintered. Each faction or even congregation has had an overt and covert agenda. The "Church" took over 500 years to decide what was "sacred", i.e., what writings it felt could totally repurpose (repurposing the Sacred Book of a people Roman and Byzantine Christians had attempted to destroy and victimize). Each Christian congregation, it seems, had a holy document to justify its religious preferences. Each document were local products. If copying occurred locally or elsewhere, conditions and quality of transmission were poor and undisciplined. Later errors and even opinions of the scribes became part of the Christian writings and found their way into the Greek text! This explains how a Jewish faith as described in a supposedly Jewish book, the New Testament, can be filled with doctrines no Jew believed as well as the volumes of anti-Semitism clothed in its passages. Unlike the Masorah notes of the Hebrew Bible written separated from the main text, Christian scribes often added their comments within their "sacred" texts.
Answer for yourself: Are inspiration and inerrancy schemes necessary devices to lock out questions concerning the questionable providence of Christianity and its writings?
Some churches were more powerful and influential with the Roman government, and the government stepped in to solidify the "Church". The rest is history of a gentile phenomenon unworthy of space. Allow me this sorted example, for comparison sake:
The "NT" is no where sacred as is the Jewish Old Testament. The books of the NT were written, collected, and canonized by men and committees, not magically "breathed" into scribes.
Answer for yourself: If no two individual ancient Greek manuscripts (from which later translations were made) of the more than 5400 containing portions of the NT are the same textually, then which one of these is the "inspired" text?
Even 1600 years later, the best Christian scholars cannot determine the original words of Yeshua. Yet Christians have warred against each other over the most ridiculous nuances of their eclectic assemblage of writings. The first to start the "New Testament" canon was a man named Marcion.
Answer for yourself: What was his agenda?
He collected the letters of Paul of Tarsus, understandably, to promote the belief that the god of the Jews was an evil, worldly, hateful deity with designs to rule the earth through laws. Iesous was the new god, subduing the Jewish god, and bringing in a spiritual age via a extremely lax holy spirit. (Sounds like dispensationalism!)
Answer for yourself: Are modern "critical" scholars the first to question the providence of the New Testament?
Not at all. The collecting and "canonization" of books included was a long process . As mentioned above, ancient "books" were not comparable to what we have today. Scrolls were long and heavy, codexes (which had sewn pages) were large and heavy, and both could only include a limited amount of information found in a few letters, gospels, or a prophet or two. This is why that you will find few ancient codexes containing all of what is today understood as a "New Testament." Until the printed book after the 1540s, and probably later than this, very few Christians ever saw a "New Testament."
Answer for yourself: What is the Christian Canon of Scripture?
There is agreement among the churches that what they call the "Old Testament" (i.e., the Tanakh) is authoritative and to be used by Christians for questions of doctrine and faith. Catholics add apocryphal writings to their menu as deuterocanonicals. (The first King James bibles also included the Apocrypha.)
But the "church" does not agree on the NT canon or canonical writing of the Christian age. The Syrian Church does not include 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, or Revelations. The Ethiopic Church includes books called Synodos, Clement, Book of the Covenant (with Testament of the Lord), and the Didascalia. Both churches are very ancient. And they have been using these writings canonically since the 300-400s CE. The Catholic Church itself did not close the canon until 1545 (Council of Trent), in reaction to Martin Luther.
Martin Luther could not accept all the books of the church canon as proper. He had a problem with James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelations because they did not square with Paul of Tarsus in his mind. These he placed in an appendix to his translation of the Christian bible. And other reformers, the foundations of today's fundamentalist Protestantism, held the Christian canon under suspicion as they did all the other Catholic inventions. Most Protestant groups do not officially "close" their canon of scripture, and may still be adding to it (for example, the Book of Mormon by the Latter Day Saints).
Typical Christians (like typical members of any group) are ignorant of their history, and just stay in line. To make known any questions concerning the divine status of their church attacks their security in their way of life. Inerrancy and inspiration issues really have little to do with the text of the NT. The doctrines of Inerrancy and Inspiration are designed to place the historical development, culture, and conclusions of Christianity beyond the questions concerning its biblical legitimacy.
Answer for yourself: Is the NT worthless?
The NT writings and most ancient writings are hardly worthless. Something important happened concerning Yeshua ben Yosef and an actual movement started because of him. Even though historical Christianity is better called Paulinism, and is not a result of intimate understanding of Yahwism, there are clues of what Yeshua said and taught in several NT books. But using the correct criteria of biblical authority and interpretation allows one to be independent of this, and able to analyze uninspired, yet valuable contributions buried in the NT.