Last Updated:

Mar 13, 2010

  Textual Evidence

Boreelianus (F/09)
& John 7:53-8:11

Photos & Text, Jn 8:1-11, (9th century MS)

Page Index

Codex F/09 - Boreelianus:
    page 1 - Folio 199a, Jn 7:17-22
    page 2 - Folio 199b, Jn 7:22-28
    page 3- Folio 200a, Jn 8:10-14
    page 4- Folio 200b, Jn 8:15-21

Return to Top



Codex F is important, for it is one of the earliest manuscripts which clearly contain John 8:1-11, in its proper place, even though most of the pages have been lost. The surviving pages that contain the last part of the passage are shown below.

Info below excerpted from: The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism (Online: Waltz)

Photos & Headings have been added for clarity and navigation purposes.

Encyclopedia of NT TC


Codex Boreelianus - Fe (09)

Location / Catalogue No.:

Utrecht, University Library MS. 1.


Contains the Gospels with significant lacunae, especially in Luke; the damage has been progressive, and some leaves have been lost since Wettstein saw it in 1730. (Between 1730 and 1830 it was in private hands, and was unbound, with the leaves becoming disordered and torn.) As it stands now, it begins with Matt. 9:1 (though in Wetstein's time it apparently started at 7:6); it also lacks Matt. 12:1-44, 13:55-14:9, 15:20-31, 20:18-21:5, (24:13-15 according to SQE but not Scrivener), Mark 1:43-2:8, 2:23-3:5, 11:6-26, 14:54-15:5, 15:39-16:19, John 3:5-14, 4:23-38, 5:18-38, 6:39-63, 7:28-8:10, 10:32-11:3, 12:14-25, 13:34-end.

Luke is in even worse shape; Scrivener reports that there are 24 different lacunae, and SQE does not even bother collating the manuscript in that book.


Dated paleographically to about the 9th century (so Tischendorf, von Soden, Aland; Tregelles preferred the 10th century).

Special Features:

It has the Ammonian sections but not the Eusebian references; otherwise it has all the features of late uncials, including accents and breathings.


The text is definitely Byzantine; the Alands list it as Category V; von Soden lists it as Ki. Wisse's classification doesn't mean much in this case; he lists F as Kmix in Luke 1, but it is defective for the other two chapters. In all likelihood it is actually either Kx or Ki (what Wisse would call Kx Cluster W).


The date of the manuscript makes it potentially important for the history of the Byzantine text, but the large number of lacunae significantly reduce its value; it would have been much better had another Byzantine manuscript (preferably one of a type other than Kx) been used in the apparatus of SQE and UBS4.

Codex F & Jn 8:1-11

Although Codex Boreelianus is missing several pages from the key section of John's Gospel, it is obvious from the surviving page (containing 8:10 forward) that this manuscript contained the PA (John 7:53-8:11) in its standard place. This 9th century manuscript is a copy of a much earlier exemplar, probably older than the 7th century.

Excerpt from: Codex Boreelianus (9th cent.)

Codex Boreelianus - John 7:17 - 8:21


Page 1: Folio 199a (recto)
John 7:17-22

This is the first side of the last surviving page from the previous part of John's Gospel (ch. 1:1 to 7:28). It looks as though the parchment pages were deliberately cut and taken from the middle of the book to be re-used for some other purpose.

Page 2: Folio 199b (verso)
John 7:22-28

The opposite side of the previous and last page before the large lacuna (section of missing pages from about John 7:28 to about 8:9):

Page 3: Folio 200a (recto)
John 8:10-14

The text at the top of the first column runs:
πλην της γυναι- (πλην... = E F G H K Byzpt
κος ειπεν αυτη [γυναι]
που εισιν; εκεινον,
οι κατηγοροι σου?
ουδεις σε κατεκρι-
νεν? η δε ειπεν,
ουδεις κ[υρι]ε. ειπεν
δε [αυτη] ο Ι[ησου]ς, ουδε εγω σε
κρινω, πορευου
και μηκετι α-
μαρτανε ⋅ παλιν...

This is essentially the Traditional (Majority) text.

Page 4: Folio 200b (verso)
John 8:15-21

The opposite side of the first page of the continuing manuscript. Note in passing that the copyist has accidentally omitted verses 16b and 17 entirely, due to homoeoteleuton (similar ending of lines). The corrector, possibly the original scribe, has inserted the missing portion in the margin. This again illustrates clearly how the majority of omissions arise, and provides evidence that that scribes tended to omit more often than they inserted material in a copy. Note also the 'normal' use of the asterisk here, to indicate, not a portion of text to be removed, but to mark the point of insertion for an accidental omission.

Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional Valid CSS!