The Textus Receptus is a collection of collated, printed Greek texts of the New Testament, which process began with Erasmus around the time of the Reformation. Erasmus sought to improve the Latin text of the Bible of his day by bringing in improvements from the Greek, and he also presented a constructed Greek text with his improved Latin translation.

The Textus Receptus therefore properly represents the body of work beginning with Novum Instrumentum omne, which is to say, that the TR is properly a combination of both the Latin and Greek texts. (Besides the Vulgate, there are various examples of good or better-than-Catholic traditions of usages of Latin scripture, including the old Latin, Celtic and Wycliffite traditions. The Vulgate itself is pre-medieval Catholic, as Jerome died way back in 420 AD.)

Peter van Kleeck argues for the Textus Receptus. However, what he says rightly about the TR really should apply to the KJB. I am probably paraphrasing or restating his arguments in my own language, but I trust I am representing the point fairly.

He says that the Bible refers to itself in autographic terms. When you are reading the TR you are therefore reading the word of God. The Bible doesn’t say that something is a copy or a translation, it just says it is the word of God or the prophet said this, etc.

My view is that this just as much applies to the KJB as the TR.

Second, he says that the Reformers used the TR as if it was representing the word of God. This is evident in how they used the TR, including for translating and also what they expressly said about the word of God, the Scripture, which was at hand represented to them by the TR.

My view is that the Westminster men also said that the Bible translated was the word of God, meaning that the KJB represents the TR, which is to say, that the KJB actually is, as Edward Hills said, an independent variety of the TR.

Peter van Kleeck argues that the TR tradition is essentially a church usage tradition as opposed to the modern critical view which has arisen out of a specialist pocket of academia.

If looking at Church usage, then look no further at the best doctrines and best denominations in the world, have been using the KJB. The fact is that the KJB has been common to Anglicans, Calvinists, Baptists, Methodists, Salvation Armyists, traditional Pentecostals, etc.

One argument that is made against the TR is that since all TR editions differ, and there are over 30 of them, which one is exactly right? It has been reported that Peter van Kleeck thinks that the best TR representative is Scrivener’s, which closely aligns to the KJB.

However the best form of the received text is the final form, the KJB, which is a translation. Being a translation is not an issue since it is fully accurate and exact. The Authorized Version’s translation is in the world’s most popular language, English.

Finally, Peter van Kleeck has tried to argue that on probabilities, the TR represents the best text. If we are to count manuscripts, then yes, and if we are to look at church history, then yes, but it is somewhat subjective to mathematically quantify.

The KJB has the universality and availability that is unmatched, therefore the KJB is better than any other TR copy or translation.