I also want to add that in the aftermath of reading this paper, I did a lot more research into some other material and substantially expanded the Wikipedia page on Biblical inerrancy and described its origins there. Here is the full account I wrote copied and pasted from Wiki:
The first formulations of the doctrine of inerrancy had not been established according to the authority of a council, creed, or church, until the post-Reformation period. Origen of Alexandria thought there were minor discrepancies between the accounts of the Gospels but dismissed them due to their lack of theological importance, writing “let these four [Gospels] agree with each other concerning certain things revealed to them by the Spirit and let them disagree a little concerning other things” ( Commentary on John 10.4). Later, John Chrysostom was also unconcerned with the notion that the scriptures were in congruence with all matters of history unimportant to matters of faith.
But if there be anything touching time or places, which they have related differently, this nothing injures the truth of what they have said … [but those things] which constitute our life and furnish out our doctrine nowhere is any ofthem found to have disagreed, no not ever so little ( Homily on Matthew 1.6)
In his Commentary on Galatians , Jerome also argued that Paul’s rebuke of Peter in Galatians 2:11-14 for acting like a Jew around the Jewish faction of the early Church was an insincere “white lie” as Paul himself had done the same thing. In response, Augustine rebuked Jerome’s interpretation and affirmed that the scriptures contained no mistakes in them, and that admitting a single mistake would shed doubt on the entire scripture.
It seems to me that the most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the sacred books: that is to say that the men by whom the Scripture has been given to us, and committed to writing, did put down in these books anything false. . . . If you once admit into such a high sanctuary of authority one false statement … there will not be left a single sentence of those books which, if appearing to any one difficult in practice or hard to believe, may not by the same fatal rule be explained away, as a statement in which, intentionally, . . . the author declared what was not true ( Letters of St Augustine 28.3).
By the time of the Reformation, there was still no official doctrine of inerrancy. For Martin Luther (1483-1546), for example, “inspiration did not insure inerrancy in all details. Luther recognizes mistakes and inconsistencies in Scripture and treated them with lofty indifference because they did not touch the heart of the Gospel.” When Matthew appears to confuse Jeremiah with Zechariah in Matt. 27:9, Luther wrote that “Such points do not bother me particularly.” The Christian humanist and one of the leading scholars of the northern Renaissance, Erasmus (1466-1536), was also unconcerned with minor errors not impacting theology, and at one point, thought that Matthew mistook one word for another. In a letter to Johannes Eck, Erasmus wrote that “Nor, in my view, would the authority of the whole of Scripture be instantly imperiled, as you suggest, if an evangelist by a slip of memory did put one name for another, Isaiah for instance instead of Jeremiah, for this is not a point on which anything turns.” The same point of view held true for John Calvin (1509-1564), who wrote that “It is well known that the Evangelists were not very concerned with observing the time sequences.” The doctrine of inerrancy, however, began to develop as a response to these Protestant attitudes. Whereas the Council of Trent only held that the Bible’s authority was “in matters of faith and morales”, the Jesuit and cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) argued in his 1586 De verbo Dei , the first volume of his multi-volume Disputationes de controversiis christianae fidei adversus hujus temporis haereticos that “There can be no error in Scripture, whether it deals with faith or whether it deals with morals/mores, or whether it states something general and common to the whole Church, or something particular and pertaining to only one person.” Bellarmine’s views were extremely important in his condemnation of Galileo and Catholic-Protestant debate, as the Protestant response was to also affirm his heightened understanding of inerrancy.
Yes, to anyone who is wondering, I do substantial amount of editing on Wikipedia.