By “original and authentic” text, the Protestant orthodox do not mean the autographa which no one can possess but the apographa in the original tongue which are the source of all versions. The Jews throughout history and the church in the time of Christ regarded the Hebrew of the Old Testament as authentic and for nearly six centuries after Christ, the Greek of the New Testament was viewed as authentic without dispute. It is important to note that the Reformed orthodox insistence on the identification of the Hebrew and Greek texts as alone authentic does not demand direct reference to autographa in those languages; the “original and authentic text” of Scripture means, beyond the autograph copies, the legitimate tradition of Hebrew and Greek apographa.

A rather sharp contrast must be drawn, therefore, between the Protestant orthodox arguments concerning the autographa and the views of Archibald Alexander Hodge and Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield. . . . Those who claim an errant text, against the orthodox consensus to the contrary, must prove their case. To claim errors in the scribal copies, the apographa, is hardly a proof. The claim must be proven true of the autographa. The point made by Hodge and Warfield is a logical leap, a rhetorical flourish, a conundrum designed to confound the critics—who can only prove their case for genuine errancy by recourse to a text they do not (and surely cannot) have.

The marvelous preservation of the Scriptures; though none in time be so ancient, nor none so much oppugned, yet God hath still by his providence preserved them, and every part of them. Only the [Greek & Hebrew] Scriptures are for the letter to be held authentical; and as the water is most pure in the Fountain by the springing thereof, so the right understanding of the words of the ho­ly Scriptures is most certain in the original tongues of Hebrew and Greek, in which they were first written, and delivered to the Church, out of the which Languages they must be truly translated for the understanding of them that have not the knowledge of those tongues. James Ussher

Turretin and other high and late orthodox writers argued that the authenticity and infallibility of Scripture must be identified in and of the apographa, not in and of lost autographa.

The case for Scripture as an infallible rule of faith and practice . . . . rests on an examination of the apographa and does not seek the infinite regress of the lost autographa as a prop for textual infallibility.

Reason confirms the unity of the Godhead are therefore three persons in one divine essence and this is clearly established by the passage in 1 John v 7 which is brought forward and quoted Cyprian although not read in many copies A greater number of reasons can be alleged why passage should be said to have been struck out heretics than to have been inserted by the orthodox It was more to the advantage of heretics to this passage than to that of the orthodox to add it because if it were genuine the heresy of the would be entirely overthrown if spurious the orthodox creed was in no danger being clearly established from other passages of scripture The connection also of the text confirms our opinion unless this verse be admitted there seems no why John should say There are three that witness in earth not having before said any of three witnesses in heaven Nor can it be that these words in earth were also added afterwards for the contrary appears from verse 9 mention is made both of the divine and the testimony If we receive the witness of men witness of God is greater.

By “original and authentic” text, the Protestant orthodox do not mean the autographa which no one can possess but the apographa in the original tongue which are the source of all versions. The Jews throughout history and the church in the time of Christ regarded the Hebrew of the Old Testament as authentic and for nearly six centuries after Christ, the Greek of the New Testament was viewed as authentic without dispute. It is important to note that the Reformed orthodox insistence on the identification of the Hebrew and Greek texts as alone authentic does not demand direct reference to autographa in those languages; the “original and authentic text” of Scripture means, beyond the autograph copies, the legitimate tradition of Hebrew and Greek apographa. Dr. Richard Muller

Therefore I like that of Bellarmine, who stands upon it, that of such like things a certainty may be had from the testimonies of men, in some sort comparable to natural evidence it self, for that it leaves no scruple or dubitation in our minds: But what of all this? Why it shewes that the general consent of (in a manner) all Hebricians and Grecians in the Christian world, consenting that our Originals are by the good hand of God preserved uncorrupt, and pure, is a sufficient persuasion, to breed a moral certainty answerable to natural evidence, excluding all reasonable dubitation to the contrary. Richard Capel

I answer, both to disciples and to teachers, God is made known to be the author of it by the revelation of the same Spirit. Moses and the prophets did not utter at random what we have received from their hand, but, speaking at the suggestion of God, they boldly and fearlessly testified, what was actually true, that it was the mouth of the Lord that spake. The same Spirit, therefore, who made Moses and the prophets certain of their calling, now also testifies to our hearts, that he has employed them as his servants to instruct us. Accordingly, we need not wonder if there are many who doubt as to the Author of the Scripture; for, although the majesty of God is displayed in it, yet none but those who have been enlightened by the Holy Spirit have eyes to perceive what ought, indeed, to have been visible to all, and yet is visible to the elect alone. This is the first clause, that we owe to the Scripture the same reverence which we owe to God; because it has proceeded from him alone, and has nothing belonging to man mixed with it. John Calvin on 2 Timothy 3:16

It can, then, with no color of probability be asserted (which yet I find some learned men too free in granting), namely, that there hath the same fate attended the Scripture in its transcription as hath done other books. Let me say without offense, this imagination, asserted on deliberation, seems to me to border on atheism. Surely the promise of God for the preservation of his word, with his love and care of his church, of whose faith and obedience that word of his is the only rule, requires other thoughts at our hands. John Owen

The case for Scripture as an infallible rule of faith and practice . . . . rests on an examination of the apographa and does not seek the infinite regress of the lost autographa as a prop for textual infallibility. Dr. Richard Muller

All too much discussion of the Reformers’ methods has attempted to turn them into precursors of the modern critical method, when in fact, the developments of exegesis and hermeneutics in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries both precede and, frequently conflict with (as well as occasionally adumbrate) the methods of the modern era.

It can, then, with no color of probability be asserted (which yet I find some learned men too free in granting), namely, that there hath the same fate attended the Scripture in its transcription as hath done other books. Let me say without offense, this imagination, asserted on deliberation, seems to me to border on atheism. Surely the promise of God for the preservation of his word, with his love and care of his church, of whose faith and obedience that word of his is the only rule, requires other thoughts at our hands. John Owen

Reason confirms the unity of the Godhead are therefore three persons in one divine essence and this is clearly established by the passage in 1 John v 7 which is brought forward and quoted Cyprian although not read in many copies A greater number of reasons can be alleged why passage should be said to have been struck out heretics than to have been inserted by the orthodox It was more to the advantage of heretics to this passage than to that of the orthodox to add it because if it were genuine the heresy of the would be entirely overthrown if spurious the orthodox creed was in no danger being clearly established from other passages of scripture The connection also of the text confirms our opinion unless this verse be admitted there seems no why John should say There are three that witness in earth not having before said any of three witnesses in heaven Nor can it be that these words in earth were also added afterwards for the contrary appears from verse 9 mention is made both of the divine and the testimony If we receive the witness of men witness of God is greater. Benedict Pictet, Christian Theology, pg. 103