The ancient structure known as the “Christian building” has long been considered the only example of a “house church,” or domestic space renovated for Christian worship. (Photo courtesy of Yale University Art Gallery)
NEW HAVEN, Conn. — In the sun-baked ruins of an ancient Syrian city, a revolutionary discovery is rewriting the story of early Christianity. For nearly a century, scholars have pointed to a modest structure in Dura-Europos as the prototype of Christian architecture – a simple house transformed into a place of worship. But now, this cornerstone of religious history is crumbling under the weight of new evidence.
Researchers Camille Leon Angelo from Yale University and Joshua Silver from the University of Manchester have shaken the foundations of religious scholarship with their fascinating study, published in the Journal of Roman Archaeology. Their work challenges the long-held belief that early Christians worshipped in adapted homes, suggesting instead that they may have been more intentional in creating distinct sacred spaces than previously thought.
The building in question, known as the “Christian Building” at Dura-Europos, was discovered in the 1920s and has since been hailed as the prime example of a “house church” or “domus ecclesiae.” Scholars believe it was originally a private residence that was renovated around 234 CE to accommodate Christian worship. This structure was thought to represent a crucial link between the house churches mentioned in the New Testament, such as in Acts 12:12, and the grand basilicas built after Emperor Constantine’s conversion.
However, this new research suggests that the structure was far more radically altered than previously thought, to the point where it no longer resembled or functioned like a typical house in the city.
The Christian Building remained in use until around 254-256 CE, when its story took a dramatic turn. The Sasanians laid siege to Dura-Europos, prompting the Romans to fortify the city’s western wall with a massive earthen embankment. This defensive measure inadvertently sealed off many buildings, including the Christian Building. After the city’s conquest and abandonment, this embankment served as a time capsule, preserving the structures remarkably well over the centuries.
Leon Angelo and Silver conducted a detailed analysis of the building’s architectural features, comparing them to other domestic structures in Dura-Europos. They found that the renovations made to accommodate Christian use went beyond simple adaptations, fundamentally changing how people would have experienced and used the space.
One of the most striking findings was the removal of key features that defined Durene houses, such as the building’s cistern and food preparation area. These elements were essential for daily life in a home, and their absence suggests the structure was no longer meant to function as a residence. The researchers also discovered unique architectural elements, like low-level windows, that were not found in other domestic structures in the city.
The study also revealed significant changes in how natural light flowed through the building after its renovation. Using advanced 3D modeling and daylight simulations, the researchers demonstrated how these changes would have altered the way people moved through and used the space. For example, the main assembly room was redesigned to direct attention towards a specific wall, suggesting a more formal, organized form of worship than previously assumed.
Furthermore, the researchers found that the combination of architectural features in the Christian Building was unique among Durene houses. Out of 62 other residential structures analyzed, none had the same combination of elements as the Christian Building after its renovation.
Intriguingly, the Christian Building was not alone in its transformation. It stood on the same street as a synagogue and a Mithraeum, both of which also began as private homes before being renovated for religious use. This pattern of adaptation has long been seen as typical of religious architecture in Dura-Europos.
“But we don’t say ‘house synagogue,’ or ‘house Mithraeum.’ We allow them to stand on their own,” notes Leon Angelo, a Ph.D. candidate in Yale’s Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, in a statement. “So if we have a building that follows the same architectural trajectory in the city, why are we emphasizing the structure’s domestic origins? We wanted to know, how domestic was it, and how would it have been seen by the community?”
These findings challenge the idea that early Christian worship spaces were simply houses with minor modifications. Instead, they suggest a more deliberate and significant transformation of space, possibly indicating a desire by early Christians to create distinct, recognizable places of worship within their communities.
“Dialogues within the academy as well as in popular culture give the impression that Christians had, prior to Emperor Constantine, gathered and worshipped in pseudo-domestic spaces,” says Leon Angelo. “But if this is the only securely dated example we have, and it wasn’t in fact particularly or even somewhat domestic, then why do we keep up that perception?”
The study calls for a reevaluation of how we understand the development of early Christian architecture. It suggests that rather than following a universal pattern, early Christians may have been more influenced by local architectural traditions and may have been more intentional in creating spaces that stood apart from typical domestic structures.
As the dust settles on this archaeological bombshell, one thing is clear: the story of early Christianity is far from fully excavated. With each trowel stroke and each pixel of a 3D model, researchers like Angelo and Silver are peeling back layers of assumption, revealing a past both more complex and more fascinating than we ever imagined. In the ancient streets of Dura-Europos, the foundations of religious history are being rebuilt, one stone at a time.
Paper Summary
Methodology
The researchers employed a multi-faceted approach to analyze the Christian Building at Dura-Europos. They started by examining the architectural remains and comparing them to 62 other houses in the city. They used quantitative analysis to determine how often certain features appeared together in Durene houses.
The team also created 3D models and daylight simulations to understand how natural light would have flowed through the building before and after its renovation. This combination of methods allowed them to assess how the building’s form and function changed over time.
Key Results
The study found that the Christian Building underwent extensive renovations that significantly differentiated it from typical Durene houses. Key findings include the removal of the cistern and food preparation area, the addition of unique architectural features like low-level windows, and changes in room layout and decoration.
The daylight simulations revealed how these changes would have altered the way people moved through and used the space. Statistically, the combination of features in the renovated Christian Building was not found in any other analyzed house in Dura-Europos.
Study Limitations
The excavation methods used in the early 20th century, when the site was first uncovered, limited the amount of detailed information available about small finds and the phasing of renovations. The lack of information about how the building was used before its renovation also posed challenges. Additionally, the study relies on architectural remains and simulations, which can’t fully capture all aspects of how the space was experienced in antiquity.
Discussion & Takeaways
The study suggests that early Christian architecture may have been more diverse and context-specific than previously thought. The authors argue that the Christian Building at Dura-Europos should not be seen as a typical “house church” but as a unique adaptation influenced by local architectural traditions. They propose that early Christians may have been more intentional in creating distinct worship spaces than previously assumed. The research calls for a reevaluation of other early Christian sites and a move away from universal models of architectural development.
Funding & Disclosures
The study does not explicitly mention any funding sources or disclosures. The researchers appear to have conducted the study as part of their academic work, with support from their respective institutions, Yale University and the University of Manchester.
It is an interesting find. But it is also one single example. The researchers need to show why this should represent the majority of Christian meeting places before we can refer to it as a “bombshell” (likely a term chosen by the editor).
I would be interested if there is evidence of similar buildings and other parts of the Roman empire.
It would also be interesting to know Roman persecution of Christians was less in this area at the time the building was used, allowing for a more public meeting place without fear of being found out.
With the exception of Diocletian, it largely depended on where you lived in the Empire as to how much religious persecution you would experience. As such, in peripheral areas of the Middle East, Christians worshiped openly while in Rome, they might not have that luxury.
This just proves that it’s much like today. There are house churches and there are buildings specifically intended as places of worship (church buildings). This doesn’t destroy the idea that probably MOST believers met in houses until a certain point, and while this might be evidence of a transition to larger buildings from homes as Christianity spread and there was a need for larger spaces to meet, I wouldn’t go as far to say that it’s a “crumbling of religious history” or that house churches weren’t largely the trend at the time. Besides, the central idea of the “church” is that it’s the Body of Christ (meaning the people as a collective are the building, not the other way around).
Christianity is based on the Golden rule. ” Treat others as you would like to be treated “.
This study seems to say that the building is too distinct as a church to have been a house-church. But if a true house-church is then indistinguishable from a house, every house they find might as well be a church
All you need to know about this “Scholarly” article is its designation of time…CE or AD…no tip of the hat to Jesus for being the pinnacle of our temporal existence.
Exactly. What really motivated this article was fear. Fear because many Christians are fleeing the traps previously devised by Rome and other anitichrist masters – the four walled 501c3 church system, and are beginning to gather in homes just as early christians did. They really are very transparent in their attempt to try to get the door closed here. Repugnant, but not at all surprising.
All you need to know about this “Scholarly” article is it’s designation of time…CE for AD….no tip of the hat here for Jesus being the pinnacle of our temporal existence.
Nice misleading headline. I guess you’re trying to make it look like Everything I ever knew about Christian History is wrong. Nice try, but as usual, quite false. You’re talking about 1 building from about 200 years after the book of Acts was written. Acts is quite clear that the church was meeting in houses. Even in Acts 12:12, which is cited in the article, “he went to the house of Mary the mother of John.” Very clear. We don’t need archaelogical “evidence” from 200 years later, since we have a first hand, eye witness account. But hey, at least you got your click, and even some engagement, so … well done. But you’ve also taken a hit to your credibility. Was it worth it?
Please see Eastern Orthodoxy for an accurate understanding of the first Christian churches. This more modern, Evangelical idea of Christian life is very far removed from the ancient Christian reality that was established.
Not sure why it matters. I can pray and talk to God in my house, in my back yard, at the beach or in church on Sunday. Where does not matter.
Most Christians don’t say no house was ever converted, especially in a place where many converts were. But it’s unlikely that this happened frequently or widely, because of systematic persecution under emperors like Diocletian in the early 300s.
According to ancient documents, When the Christians gathered for the Nicene Council, only 11 of the 300 bishops were not maimed or crippled in some way. This is not the kind of environment where people widely created dedicated Christian worship space.
Pffft! So ONE archaeological dig finds that ONE medium-sized dwelling place was renovated to (possibly!) accommodate/facilitate larger groups meeting together for some kind of large group activity; possibly even corporate worship. Means, exactly what it says. Does NOT – by any stretch of the imagination – indicate/mean that many many other smaller home groups in the 1st & 2nd centuries throughout the Mediterranean Region were not also meeting/worshiping regularly in smaller (UN-modified) homes/domiciles. This definitely is NOT a “bombshell”; & is definitely NOT ‘rewriting early church history’! Bunch of tripe.
The Christian historians (that this report reputiates) have ALWAYS held that, by the assumed date of this “bombshell”, Christians had been using buildings other than homes for places of worship for many years. A “bombshell” this is not. StudyFinds needs to read up on history before claiming “bombshells” like this dud.
One HUGE element was not even mentioned: The threat of persecution forming the parameters that limit the modifications done to a *house church* for the sake of secrecy. One building can’t tell this whole story. The fact this building was in use until the third century allows the possibility that some of the more overt modifications occurred after the persecutions of the first and second centuries.