Papyrus P136: Acts 4:27–31; Acts 7:26–30 in a Greek Witness
Papyrus P136, Duke Papyrus 1377, is a sixth-century Greek Acts fragment written on both sides of a reused roll, with one text direction inverted relative to the other.
- Artifact date
- 6th Century
- Findspot
- Egypt; exact ancient findspot is not securely established in the consulted sources
- Current location
- Durham, North Carolina, David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Duke University, P. Duke Inv. 1377
What archaeologists can actually examine
P136 preserves parts of Acts 4:27–31 and 7:26–30 on a single papyrus fragment. The two passages are far apart in Acts, and the writing on one face is upside down relative to the other. Multispectral imaging and close material study allowed editors to recover faint letters and identify the fragment as a reused roll or rotulus rather than an ordinary consecutive codex leaf. One side carries the prayer of the Jerusalem believers after persecution; the other preserves Stephen's retelling of Moses' rejected intervention and flight. The object thus attests Acts in sixth-century Egypt while also illustrating reuse, orientation, and the limits of reconstructing a lost book from one small piece.
Two nonconsecutive Acts passages
P136 preserves parts of Acts 4:27–31 and 7:26–30 rather than adjacent text from a continuous leaf.
Inverted reuse
The writing direction on one face is upside down relative to the other, pointing to a reused roll or unusual rotulus arrangement.
Imaging recovered faint ink
Multispectral study helped editors distinguish damaged writing from the papyrus substrate.
Purpose remains unknown
The format is unusual, but the surviving piece cannot determine whether its ancient use was liturgical, educational, devotional, or practical.
Follow the evidence from discovery to debate
Move through the find in a deliberate order: establish its provenance, examine the surviving object, place it in time, and then weigh the scholarly interpretation.
How the find came to light
Duke acquired the fragment in the modern papyrus market, and its precise ancient findspot is not securely documented. It was cataloged as P.Duke Inv. 1377 before Geoffrey Smith and Brent Landau identified and published its Acts text in Novum Testamentum. Their study combined conventional papyrology with multispectral imaging to clarify abraded ink. The INTF then registered the witness as P136. Institutional custody at Duke supplies a stable modern context, but it cannot replace an archaeological excavation record. Egypt is the broad provenance; no city, monastery, rubbish mound, or ancient owner can be securely attached to the fragment on present evidence.
What you are looking at
The piece is papyrus from a roll reused for Christian text. Acts 4 appears on one face and Acts 7 on the other, with the second orientation inverted, indicating that the material was turned or repurposed rather than copied as adjacent pages of a normal codex. Damage, darkening, and abrasion made portions difficult to read until enhanced imaging separated ink from substrate. The surviving handwriting is Greek and consistent with a sixth-century literary hand. Because the passages are nonconsecutive, the fragment may derive from a roll containing selected passages, reused sheets, or another arrangement; one piece cannot determine the original document's full structure or function.
Where it belongs in history
The sixth-century date is palaeographic, aided by comparison with early Byzantine book hands. It is not based on a colophon or secure stratigraphic deposit. The format places P136 outside the most common surviving Christian codex pattern and may reflect economical reuse or a special-purpose text. Such possibilities should remain possibilities: inverted orientation alone does not reveal whether the manuscript was liturgical, educational, amuletic, or private. The fragment nevertheless shows that Acts continued to circulate in Greek in Egypt during the early Byzantine period and that Christian readers could employ book forms more varied than a complete bound codex.
Consensus, questions, and debate
The peer-reviewed editio princeps established the Acts identification, described the unusual rotulus arrangement, used imaging to recover text, and argued for a sixth-century date. INTF registration and Duke custody provide independent catalog control. Debate concerns how to understand the artifact's original format and purpose. Calling it a rotulus describes the physical relationship of writing and roll, but stronger labels such as lectionary or amulet require evidence not preserved. Imaging enhances faint traces; it does not make missing fibers reappear or remove editorial judgment. The limited text also prevents a confident text-type classification or broad conclusions about the complete Acts tradition.
The biblical record beside the artifact
Acts 4:27–31 interprets opposition from Herod, Pilate, Gentiles, and Israel within prayer for boldness, followed by the shaking of the gathering place. Acts 7:26–30 belongs to Stephen's speech and recounts Moses' attempt to reconcile Israelites, his rejection, flight to Midian, and the burning-bush encounter. P136 preserves parts of both passages in Greek. Their presence on opposite, differently oriented faces may indicate selection or material reuse rather than continuous sequence. The papyrus witnesses transmission of the wording but does not corroborate the prayer meeting, the shaking, Stephen's speech, or Moses' biography independently of the literary account.
Acts 4:27–31
27For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
28For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.
29And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word,
30By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus.
31¶ And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.
A responsible historical conclusion
P136 is valuable precisely because it is not a conventional intact book. The inverted, nonconsecutive texts show that Scripture could survive through reuse and unconventional arrangement, while multispectral imaging demonstrates how modern methods can recover ancient writing without inventing it. For readers of Acts, one face preserves communal prayer under pressure and the other Stephen's account of rejected Moses—two episodes linked by themes of opposition and divine purpose, though not necessarily selected for that reason. The fragment expands the material history of Acts and provides a concrete example of why format, orientation, and provenance belong alongside transcription in responsible manuscript interpretation.
Authoritative sources
Institutional catalogs, excavation reports, and academic publications let you examine the evidence beyond this summary.
P. Duke Inv. 1377 (P136): A Fragmentary Acts of the Apostles Papyrus
Novum Testamentum / BrillOfficial DOI for the peer-reviewed study of the material, multispectral imaging, passage identification, rotulus format, variants, provenance, and date.
INTF manuscript workspace P136
Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung, University of MünsterControls the P136 identity and registry metadata.
Duke Papyrus Archive
Duke University LibrariesProvides the institutional collection context and access framework for P.Duke Inv. 1377.
Interpreting the Duke Papyri
Duke University LibrariesExplains Duke's catalog, transcription, reconstruction, and interpretation practices relevant to fragmentary papyri.