New Testament Tools and Studies Edited by Bruce M. Metzger, Ph.D., D.D., L.H.D.,D. Theol., D. Litt. Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Emeritus Princeton Theological Seminary and Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy and ,Bart D. Ehrman, Ph.D. James A. Gray, Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,PG335-336

[Yet great progress had been made since the day when Erasmus could base an edition of the text on five or fewer manuscripts.]
The text of the new testament pg.7

“But because of the paucity of Greek manuscripts, and in particular the lack of those Greek manuscripts in which he would perceive the origin of the Latin readings, it was difficult for him to take a decision.”
Beyond What Is Written, Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament, by Jan Krans, pg27. (2006)

(The most serious defect of the first edition of the Greek New Testament was not so much its innumerable errors² as the type of text it represented. Erasmus relied on manuscripts of the twelfth/thirteenth century which represented the Byzantine Imperial text, the Koine text, or the Majority text — however it may be known³—the most recent and the poorest of the various New Testament text types, and his successors have done the same. This was the dominant form of
the text in the fourteenth/fifteenth century manuscript tradition, and even where earlier uncial manuscripts were available they were not consulted.
-------
2. many of these were pointed out to Erasmus by his contemporaries; a nineteenth century
critic in England called it the least carefully printed book ever published.
3. For these terms, cf. p. 66, etc.)
The text of the New Testament pg4

يقول موضحا عيوب نسخة الملك جيمس :

ومع زيادة عدد المخطوطات فإنه من الطبيعي أن تنشأ الحاجة لترجمة جديدة.

"The defects of King James's Version are many.
1- It was not rendered directly from the original Greek of the New Testament, but was really collated from several English versions, most of which were themselves translations from the Latin. It therefore necessarily misses the finer shades of meaning in the Greek, for it has been well said that "the Greek can draw a clear line where other languages can only make a blot." It would be impossible for a translation of a translation to be a
faithful rendering. Professedly translated from the same Greek text as Luther's, it was mostly from a recension collated by Erasmus in 1516, and Robert Stephens in 1550, from manuscripts no older than the tenth century, and was mainly a revision of several older English versions nearly all from the Latin Vulgate, or Beza's Latin version. We have closely examined a version of S. Tomson, dated 1587, 25 years before King James's saw the light, and find the two to be almost word for word.

2- But even if the Established Version had been a faithful translation of the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament then accessible, it would have been defective, for there were then but eight known and available, none of which were older than the
tenth century, and not one of superior critical value. The book of revelation had but one, and that an incomplete MS., and the missing portions liad to be supplied from the Latin Vulgate. Since then the number of known MSS. has been increased to more than 1,700, besides versions in Latin, Syriac, Coptic and Gothic, dating from two to four centuries after Christ, which contain 150,000 variations from each other. This fact alone
should call for a translation from a text made after the most careful and critical collation."

The New Covenant : containing : I. An accurate translation of the New Testament : II. A harmony of the four Gospels : III. A chronological arrangement of the text : IV. A brief and handy commentary by Hanson, J. W. (John Wesley), 1823-1901; Universalist Publishing House; Massachusetts Bible Society, pg 7-8

"The received text rests on a handful of late manuscripts and contains speculative readings, attested in no existing manuscript, made by Erasmus in his edition of the Greek New Testament of 1516. In spite of the reverence subsequently accorded Erasmus' text, it contains many erroneous and late readings."
The Five Gospels .,The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus.,pg 8 .,by:
Robert W. Funk,Westar Institute
Julian V. Hills,Marquette University
Translation Panel, Harold Attridge University of Notre Dame
Edward F. Beutner,Westar Institute
J. Dominic Crossan,DePaul University
Jon B. Daniels,Defiance College
Arthur J. Dewey,Xavier University
Robert T. Fortna,Vassar College
Ronald F. Hock,University of Southern California
Editors, Apocryphal Gospels,Ron Cameron
Wesleyan University
Karen L. King,Occidental College
Roy W. Hoover,Whitman College
Arland D. Jacobson,Concordia College
JohnS. Kloppenborg,University of Toronto
Helmut Koester,Harvard University
Lane C. McGaughy,Willamette University
Marvin W. Meyer,Chapman College
Robert J. Miller,Midway College
·Stephen J. Patterson,Eden Theological Seminary
Daryl D. Schmidt,Texas Christian University
Bernard Brandon Scott Phillips Graduate Seminary
Chris Shea,Ball State University
Mahlon H. Smith,Rutgers University

"Erasmus simply used about a half dozen late manuscripts that were available to him."

The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical? Daniel B. Wallace , June 3rd 2004.

"If the TR equals the original text, then the editor must have been just as inspired as the original writers, for he not only selected what readings were to go in this first published edition, but he also created some of the readings. To be specific, the last leaf of Erasmus’ copy of Revelation was missing, so he “back-translated” from Latin into Greek and thereby created numerous readings which have never been found in any Greek manuscript. This should cause some pause to those conservative Protestants who hail Erasmus’ text as identical with the original, for such a view implies that revelation continued into at least the sixteenth century."
Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism,26-june-2004

[One must admit that the Vulgate contained a more reliable text of the New Testament than Erasmus’ Greek manuscripts.]
Beyond What Is Written, Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament, by Jan Krans, intro., pg15. (2006)

[In the early 1970’s, work commenced in the production of a Majority based text of the Greek New Testament. This edition was the work of various Western textual scholars led by Prof. Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad. In 1982, the 1st edition of this text was published by Thomas Nelson Publishers. It would later undergo minor revision for a second printing in 1985. The text of the edition departed in less than two thousand total variations from the textus receptus.] Introduction to the BGNT,Historical Background of Byzantine NT MSS.

( this is no doubt partially due to the TR besing originally based on very narrow manuscript foundation)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6j...ew?usp=sharing
The greek new testament according to the majority text,second edition,edited by ;ZANE C. HODGES&ARTHUR L. FARSTAD,preface pg7.

(It is often stated that textual criticism of the Bible ends when the era of printed books begins; from that time on, there is no new evidence available. This is largely true — but not entirely. It is true enough that the first printed New Testament, Erasmusʼs edition which eventually led to the Textus Receptus, is derived from manuscripts we know, and thus it has no value. The earliest printed Latin Bible is almost equally useless; while the

source manuscripts are not known, the text is late.)
The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism by Robert B. Waltz Inspired by Rich Elliott ,Last Preliminary Edition,pg 44