::The history of development of canons articles are very detailed. Internal linkage may be a good option. I still maintain that diversity of views about the Bible (what it is, what it says and what it means) are fundamentally different to inconsistencies in the Bible itself. 
 ::It's a question of how much foundational work is needed to clear away tangents and cut to the chase. The Bible makes claims inconsistent with science. No one doubts the inclusion of Luke in the canon of the NT, no one doubts he claims both death and later return to life for Jesus at the literal level. There are only three options: Luke was unusually metaphorical about this, the Bible is just wrong, or the Bible is actually right. We could gab on a bit about which commentators say what and when, but that would seem to me to be better in articles about Luke, the resurrection and in the bios of writers or reviews of their books. 
 ::Again, Exodus, whatever the history of the text that came to be reproduced in a canonical form, and irrespective of its author, has nonetheless a text that includes reference to plagues and parting of the yam suph (reed sea). Any diversity in copies of these texts does not extend to excluding these components of the narrative, and these components have been received into all canons. Nailed! Bible believers have either to defend their canonization by interpreting these narratives as theological mythical reconstructions of history, or even fabrications, valuable for their theology rather than historicity, or Bible believers have to accept their view is probably inconsistent with laws of physics as we know them. 
 ::The same thing goes for many of the narrative clashes you mention. Different reasons for the same event, for example. The ten commandments (Ex 20, Dt 5) also offer different reasons for the sabbath day. That issue worries no one but believers I suspect, but is easily reconciled. 
 ::It seems to me that some might want to say that the Bible is a product of Christian debate, and this has been very confused, from this alone we'd be expecting inconsistency in the Bible. Now, that would be fine, if it was a published assessment. However, the opposite seems to be more usual in academia at least. Inspiration and other ideas actually have value partly because they arose out of intense debate that reached broad contours of consensus, but left some quite specific and identifiable points of disagreement. It's the same in many disciplines today. Sometimes the evidence permits multiple plausible stances, but it also excludes many others and this is reflected in a diversity of positions, one of which is often an uncommitted position. I'm moderately familiar with education theory, it is certainly true that there are distinct schools of thought due to differences of opinion on theoretical questions. 
 ::I mention the above because documenting the history of schools of thought is very complex and not the subject of this article. There are limited, not endless, options for both the canon and text of the Bible. Nearly all these views are internally consistent. Different views of inspiration lead to different views of canon. But all that matters in this article is that we address inconsistencies in the text of the maximal canon. The works of Shakespeare are not in the canon (though some ancient Christians thought Plato was inspired). This article has a scope that must extend to all books of all canons, but cannot extend beyond that. 
 ::Given that some books in some canons do not have a well-defined textual history, text crticism becomes significant. In fact, text history, and even language of composition, have been issues considered in working out what ought to be canonical. Just as perceived inconsistencies in books is part of deciding canon also. Protestants perceive theological inconsistency between their canon and the Roman Catholic canon, for example. 
 ::But, to return to the point, which is the issue of what does this article intend to address, I'm urging we understand that text and canon are servants to the goal which is considering Internal consistency of the Bible. It is not concerned with diversity of views about what consistitutes the Bible, except to set scope, nor with variant readings, except where these might harmonize inconsistencies away (and there are some of those  the Comma is one of them). 
 ::How does the process of attempting to circumscribe a canon describe the internal consistency or otherwise of the Bible? 
 ::One answer is it suggests that many people for a long time believed the Bible to be sufficiently consistent to be worth defining by providing list of its consituant parts. So many books were so consistent that it was hard to trim them down. But these or other conclusions seem unsatisfying and peripheral, even if we could source them.  ([[User talk:Alast