N.T. Wright is considered one of the world’s leading Biblical scholars. He has does not subscribe to inerrancy.
My book on scripture’s authority, Scripture and the Authority of God, makes clear where I stand. I take the whole of scripture utterly seriously, and I regret that many who call themselves “inerrantists� manage to avoid the real challenge at its heart, that is, Jesus’ announcing that in and through his work God really was “becoming king� over the world in a whole new way. So I don’t call myself an “inerrantist� (a) because that word means what it means within a modernist rationalism, which I reject and (b) because it seems to me to have failed in delivering a full-blooded reading and living of what the Bible actually says. It may have had a limited usefulness as a label against certain types of “modernist� denial, but it buys into at least half of the rationalist worldview which was the real problem all along.
https://religionnews.com/2014/06/02/n-t … errantist/
N.T. Wright commented on Bart Erhman’s upbringing of being an inerrantist:
“He comes from, as he says frequently, from a very very very conservative Christian background which he then threw over, for whatever reason, but in that very narrow restricted background, it’s basically all or nothing. You either have every single syllable of the Bible is literally true or if the glass cracks the glass cracks. And it’s like actually some very traditional Catholics who if the Pope is wrong on one issue he’s quite possibly wrong on everything. Now I’ve never lived in that kind of sharply-defined narrow world. I’ve never had to break out of it.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=986187#p986187