In the book, Christ & The Bible, John W. Wenham (was Vice-Principal of Tyndale Hall, Bristol, and Warden of Latimer House, Oxford) makes an excellent inductive argument for Jesus’ view of the Bible (both OT and NT). His argument, in brief:

. . . if the Gospels are substantially true, we are justified in regarding as historical those features in them which are often repeated and which are found in a variety of Gospel strata. Three such features are Jesus’ attitude to the continuing witness of his disciples after his death. He regarded the teaching of the Old Testament, his own teaching and the teaching of his apostles as the teaching of God, and therefore as wholly true and trustworthy.

Thus belief in Christ as the supreme revelation of God leads to belief in scriptural inspiration–of the Old Testament by the direct testimony of Jesus and the New Testament by inference from his testimony. . . . (from the back jacket of Christ & The Bible).

Unfortunately some have fallen prey to the belief, contra Jesus’ view of scripture (primarily of the Old Testament, but equally true of the New Testament), that the Bible is fallible, and not the direct Words of God. Both “liberal higher critic” and neo-orthodox are unanimous on their view of scripture here; the former taking this in a negative trajectory, and the latter in a positive.

Lets close this with a summative remark from Wenham:

It was evidently God’s purpose to give us a Book of Truth, rich in its diversity of concrete, personal experience and rich in its variety of forms of instruction, to be studied minutely and yet comprehensively. Could anything be better calculated to encourage the careful study of Scripture down to its smallest details than the doctrine of inspiration? And could anything be better calculated to discourage us from resting our ultimate trust in details than the doctrine of inspiration? And could anything be better calculated to discourage us from resting our ultimate trust in details than the textual uncertainty fringe? In searching for the truth the slight element of uncertainty encourages us to compare scripture with scripture and to look always for the convergent testimony of the Bible as a whole. If God had altogether preserved the Bible from the ordinary corruptions of manuscript transmission this purpose would actually have been served less well. Had the very autographs been preserved, they might well have become objects of idolatry. In any case, what reason have we to think that we should be better equipped for good works if all the loose ends of our theology could be neatly tied?

So then, starting with belief in the incarnation and a very general belief in the historical truth of the Gospels, we have found ourselves apparently compelled to accept our Lord’s view of Scripture. According to his teaching God so guided the authors that the words they wrote were his words. We have seen that this applies not only to the Old Testament, but also in principle to the New. We have seen reason to believe that God guided the church in its recognition of the inspired books and that he preserved its text, so that down the centuries it might remain unimpaired as the vehicle of revelation. We can adapt our conclusion concerning Jesus and the Old Testament and say:

To Christ the Bible is true, authoritative, inspired. To him the God of the Bible is the living God, and the teaching of the Bible is the teaching of the living God. To him, what Scriptures says, God says. (John Wenham, “Christ & The Bible,” 186-87)

For the whole of the argument, which is comprehensive, you will need to acquire and read the book by Wenham. The implication of the argument, if a person takes a lower view of scripture (and its communicative nature), then they take a low view of the revelation and authority of Jesus Christ. If Jesus viewed the scriptures as completely accurate, as the very Words of God, then a view less than this is untenable (at least for a Christian).