[bibleprotector]

For the Old Testament, yuou basically have:
The Septuagint, written in Egypt by Phillip II suring the 400 years of silence.
The Masoretic Text

The LXX was made under Ptolemy II Philadelphus.

There are multiple sources for the OT, including rabbinical commentaries, etc.

The issue is about the method in which the OT is compiled. The KJB translators used multiple sources. So do the modern version makers. The KJB heavily used the Masoretic as presented by Bomberg, the modernists use Biblia Hebraica. The problem with Biblia Hebraica is that it relies too heavily on "minority" readings. As far as I am aware, the Dead Sea Scrolls already showed that there were several sub-families of the OT. But Dr Thomas Holland has shown how the KJB OT is faithful with the correct witnesses as are found in the DSS.

For the New Testament, you hav these collections:

No, there are Textual Families, which are broad groups of similar MSS, and there are critical or gathered printed editions based on these. We have the Western Family, which is represented by the Vulgate. We have the Byzantine family, which is represented by the TR and Majority-Critical Text, and we have the Minority family, which represented by modern Critical Editions.

There is no specific link with the TR to merely Antioch. In fact, the TR is based on a wide amount of witness from a variety of places, from the east to the west, etc. Moreover, the TR takes into account the Latin witness. The problem with the Majority-Critical Text is that it limits itself to the Traditional Text alone, and sheer numerical superiority, which means that it would have to reject 1 John 5:7, etc.

Receptus was assembled and "revised" by Erasmus, a Catholic scholar during the Reformation.

The TR was assembled and edited in various different forms by different persons. However, Erasmus was uncatholic in fairly much bypassing the Catholic tradition for his work. Also, Erasmus was sympathetic to various Protestant ideals.