The most common place to find textual criticism discussed in Evangelical systematic theologies is under the heading of inerrancy. This coincides closely with Evangelical statements of faith that often specify that the Bible’s inerrancy applies to the original autographs and not to later copies. It also coincides with the fact that inerrancy and textual criticism both deal with “errors.” Even so, this theological “home” for textual criticism is of somewhat recent vintage and raises the question whether inerrancy is the best heading under which to discuss textual criticism. Drawing from a pattern found in Reformation theologians, this paper proposes that there are distinct benefits—and few drawbacks—to discussing textual criticism under the heading of Scripture’s clarity rather than its inerrancy. Thinking of textual criticism as a matter of Scripture’s clarity promises to address some recurring theological problems Evangelicals have when it comes to textual criticism such as the confusion of scribal error with theological error or the tendency to think of textual uncertainties as somehow more serious than hermeneutical ones.