This selected Aerarius' answer to What are the main differences between the Catholic and Protestant definitions of Biblical inerrancy? said:
There is not any real difference between the Catholic teaching on
inerrancy of Scripture and the generic "Protestant" view [...].
If this be the case, we have from the article on the Catholic position:
The Traditional Understanding of the Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy Prior to the Second Vatican Council
The traditional understanding of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is
perhaps most powerfully and clearly expressed by St. Augustine
[354-430] in one of his letters to St. Jerome [340-2 to 420]:
For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this
respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these
alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free
from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which
appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that
either the [manuscript] is faulty or the translator has not caught the
meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it . .
. I believe, my brother, that this is your own opinion as well as
1. Letter 82, i, 3 in Philip Schaff (ed)., Letters of St.
Augustine: The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church,
First Series, vol 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans, 1994)
Therefore if by Biblical inerrancy is meant that the authors of the canonical books of Scripture were completely free from error, then from Catholic tradition, this Catholic understanding preceded the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy by over 1550 years. And the latter statement is:
Biblical inerrancy, as formulated in the "Chicago Statement on
Biblical Inerrancy", is the doctrine that the Bible "is without error
or fault in all its teaching"; or, at least, that "Scripture in the
original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to
fact". - Source: Biblical inerrancy | Wikipedia.