Can anyone explain the thinking behind the "Textus Reservus" concept?

Question

It is mainly applied to the KJV among Independent Fundamental Baptists. I was wondering why they think that the KJV is a perserved text and therefore superior to all other translations of the English Bible.

Answer 1

They believe that the Textus Receptus isn't missing anything. The Greek New Testament edited by Wescott & Hort (also known as the Alexandrian Text) has differences with the Textus Receptus.

Even with these minor differences, there are only 40 lines of disputed text. And example of the differences is:

"And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb." (Luke 24:42, KJV/Textus Receptus)

Versus

"And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish." (Luke 24:42, ASV/Alexandrian Text)

Does the missing honeycomb affect the message of the Word? Of course not.

The reverse is also true; in the following passage, most agree that the Textus Receptus added what was not in the original, and the Alexandrian was more faithful:

"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Romans 8:1 KJV/Textus Receptus)

Versus

"There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus." (Romans 8:1 ASV/Alexandrian Text)

The reason scholars believe that the original is more in line with the Alexandrian, is because in a following verse, that exact phrase appears again, so they believe it was a copyist error. Here's the following text:

"That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Romans 8:4 Both versions)

Regardless of what someone believes about either translation, no Biblical doctrine has been distorted. The Christ is the same in both, and the message is pure.

I hope that helps!

Answer 2

The "Textus Receptus" or the majority text is the body of ancient manuscripts from which the KJV was translated, it is made up of parchment and papyrus manuscripts dating from the late 3rd to the 9th century. It is not the oldest manuscripts available today, but was at the time of KJV. It does however match to the point of 95% accuracy. The differences do not change even 1 point of doctrine and amount to variations in style, spelling, grammar, about 1900 deletions and all of which can be reconciled by cross referencing.

Answer 3

My understanding is that Textus Receptus (TR) is derived from Erasmus' Greek New Testament in the 16th century. IIRC, it is based off half-dozen (?) Medieval manuscripts of the Byzantine recension.
Most textual critics (e.g. Metzger) do not find it good enough, esp. with the manuscripts discovered later, like Codex Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus.