This is blog post from Larry Hurtado who has spent tons of time write about and resreaching the early origins of Christianity. If you want the original blog post click here.
For some time now, the general view has been that earliest Christians met (e.g., for group worship) in houses, at least mainly. In a newly-published study, Dr. Edward Adams (Kings College London) queries this, contending that the evidence for this view isn’t as solid and consistent as commonly thought, and that the extant evidence suggests instead a variety of settings. The book results from a research project that extended over a few years, and should be considered carefully by anyone seriously interested in the question: The Earliest Christian Meeting Places: Almost Exclusively Houses? (London: T&T Clark/Bloomsbury, 2013).
Adams first (Part 1) reviews the evidence for use of houses as Christian meeting-places (NT texts, extra-canonical texts, archaeological evidence, and “comparative evidence,” i.e., places used by other religious groups of the Roman period). Clearly, houses were, at least sometimes, the locale for early Christian gatherings. But Adams argues that the evidence does not justify the view that “house churches” were the rule.
In Part 2, Adams reviews indications of the use of other types of spaces: “retail, industrial & storage spaces,” “commercial, hospitality and leisure spaces,” and “outdoor spaces and burial places.”
Adams also considers the place of communal meals in earliest Christian worship-gatherings, confirming that such meals “were central to the worship of the early Christians” (201).
Expressing a “basic agreement” with the three-stage schematization of ecclesiastical architecture (domestic homes, adapted homes, purpose-built church structures), Adams urges, however, “an expanded understanding of the first and second phases” to allow a greater variety of kinds of spaces used in the very earliest period. (Cf. L. M. White, The Social Origins of Christian Architecture, Vol. 1: Building God’s House in the Roman World, Trinity Press International, 1990.)
But Adams questions whether the term “house churches” should continue to be used at all for early Christian groups. The expression isn’t found in ancient texts, and he finds the it “deeply associated with the modern house church movement” so that “in applying it to early churches, it is difficult to avoid thereby implying that they are homologous with house churches of modern times.” So, he urges, “the category ‘house church/churches’ should be dropped altogether from New Testament and Early Christian studies” (202).
Adams has engaged a long-standing view, and is likely to generate some animated discussion. It will be interesting to see how this goes. But the detail and depth of Adams’ own analysis call for a careful weighing of his case.
For some time now, the general view has been that earliest Christians met (e.g., for group worship) in houses, at least mainly. In a newly-published study, Dr. Edward Adams (Kings College London) queries this, contending that the evidence for this view isn’t as solid and consistent as commonly thought, and that the extant evidence suggests instead a variety of settings. The book results from a research project that extended over a few years, and should be considered carefully by anyone seriously interested in the question: The Earliest Christian Meeting Places: Almost Exclusively Houses? (London: T&T Clark/Bloomsbury, 2013).
Adams first (Part 1) reviews the evidence for use of houses as Christian meeting-places (NT texts, extra-canonical texts, archaeological evidence, and “comparative evidence,” i.e., places used by other religious groups of the Roman period). Clearly, houses were, at least sometimes, the locale for early Christian gatherings. But Adams argues that the evidence does not justify the view that “house churches” were the rule.
In Part 2, Adams reviews indications of the use of other types of spaces: “retail, industrial & storage spaces,” “commercial, hospitality and leisure spaces,” and “outdoor spaces and burial places.”
Adams also considers the place of communal meals in earliest Christian worship-gatherings, confirming that such meals “were central to the worship of the early Christians” (201).
Expressing a “basic agreement” with the three-stage schematization of ecclesiastical architecture (domestic homes, adapted homes, purpose-built church structures), Adams urges, however, “an expanded understanding of the first and second phases” to allow a greater variety of kinds of spaces used in the very earliest period. (Cf. L. M. White, The Social Origins of Christian Architecture, Vol. 1: Building God’s House in the Roman World, Trinity Press International, 1990.)
But Adams questions whether the term “house churches” should continue to be used at all for early Christian groups. The expression isn’t found in ancient texts, and he finds the it “deeply associated with the modern house church movement” so that “in applying it to early churches, it is difficult to avoid thereby implying that they are homologous with house churches of modern times.” So, he urges, “the category ‘house church/churches’ should be dropped altogether from New Testament and Early Christian studies” (202).
Adams has engaged a long-standing view, and is likely to generate some animated discussion. It will be interesting to see how this goes. But the detail and depth of Adams’ own analysis call for a careful weighing of his case.
Comments
Post a Comment