Early North African Christianity

Turning Points in the Development of the Church

Eastman, David L.

• Publisher: Baker Academic
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781493431328
• Topic: Theologie & Religion
• Subtopic: Kirchengeschichte

An internationally recognized scholar highlights the important role the North African church played in the development of Christian thought. This accessible introduction brings Africa back to the center of the study of Christian history by focusing on key figures and events that influenced the history and trajectory of Christianity as a whole. Written and designed for the classroom, the book zeroes in on five turning points to show how North African believers significantly shaped Christian theology, identity, and practice in ways that directly impact the church today.

1
A (Re)Introduction to Africa

Defining “Africa”

This book focuses on early Christian Africa, but we need to clarify what we mean by “Africa.” If we say “Africa” today, many people think of the entire continent. This can create misunderstandings because when media outlets refer to problems in “Africa,” they mask the great variety among the different nations on this enormous and beautiful continent. Egypt is very different from Kenya, and both of these places are quite different from South Africa.

Because we are studying the ancient world, in this book we are going to define Africa by its ancient boundaries. In our period of study, the northern coast of the continent was under the control of the Roman Empire, and the Romans called this particular area “Africa.” Africa for the Romans did not include Egypt (which they just called Egypt—Aegyptus) or anywhere south of the Sahara. So in this book Africa refers not to the whole continent but to a very particular part of the northern coast of the continent.

For the sake of clarity, many scholars of early Christianity refer to this region as “North Africa.” They want to be more specific about what is and is not included.

The map in Figure 1.1 shows the area of Roman Africa. It stretched from modern-day Libya all the way to the northwest coast of the continent in modern-day Morocco.

Figure 1.1 Map of Roman North Africa [© Baker Publishing Group]

Now let us look in more detail at the map of this region. In the Roman Empire, Africa was actually divided into four smaller regions for the sake of administration. Proconsular Africa covered much of modern Tunisia and northern stretches of Libya. It included Carthage, the largest and most important city in this entire region. (It was called Proconsular Africa because this was where the proconsul, or regional governor, resided.)

For a long period of time prior to Roman rule, Carthage controlled this part of the world, even including Sicily. Carthage was an ancient economic and military superpower. Because the Romans and Carthaginians kept running into each other, a series of three wars, called the Punic Wars, eventually erupted between these two empires. Rome finally came out on top, but only by a narrow margin. The famous Carthaginian general Hannibal, who marched his army across the Alps in winter (including his war elephants), very nearly conquered Rome at one point.

But Rome finally won and took over this region, and Carthage remained a key city. This was true before Christianity arrived here, and it remained true after Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire. Carthage became one of the most significant cities in early Christianity, and the relationship between Carthage and Rome remained important and was, as we will see in this book, sometimes strained.

Farther to the west, including part of modern Algeria, was Numidia. This region also included a number of important cities. Hippo Regius (“Royal Hippo,” modern Annaba) is probably the most famous. “Hippo” was a Latinized form of the city’s older name in the Punic language, and “Regius” designates that the ancient kings of Numidia used to reside there.

In Christian history, Hippo’s most famous resident was a bishop named Augustine (St. Augustine), who will be the focus of part 5 of this book. He served as the city’s bishop from 395 or 396 CE until his death in 430. He was also born in Numidia in a place called Thagaste (modern Souk Ahras, Algeria) and studied in Madauros (modern M’Daourouch), a center of learning that was the hometown of the famous Roman author Apuleius. Overall, Numidia was less urban than Proconsular Africa, and the two regions did not always see eye-to-eye on church matters, as we will see.

Next comes the region of Mauretania, which was originally subdivided into two parts. Mauretania Caesariensis was ruled from a city called Caesarea on the Mediterranean coast, and Mauretania Tingitana was ruled from the city of Tingis (modern Tangier) on the Strait of Gibraltar. Diocletian created a third division in 293 CE, Mauretania Sitifensis (ruled from the inland city Setifis, which is modern Setif).

The regions of Mauretania were less densely populated than other parts of North Africa, but they were still home to large and impressive cities. The remains of these cities are often well preserved in the hot, dry climate of the region, but they are much less visited than other parts of the former Roman Empire. (Travel particularly to Algeria requires a lot of planning and paperwork, but from personal experience I can tell you that the sites there are worth the effort. You will also have most archaeological sites and museums all to yourself.)

Africa’s Centrality

When we speak of history in this period, we must be clear about another thing: Africa was at the center of the action, not an afterthought or a secondary region.

By the time of the Roman Empire, the population of Rome had swelled to around one million people according to estimates by historians. According to the Jewish historian Josephus, who wrote at the end of the first century CE, about two-thirds of the wheat consumed in Rome came from Africa (the other one-third came from Egypt). Even if his math was not perfectly precise (Sicily and Sardinia also produced wheat for Rome), his point was clear: Africa was critical to the literal survival of people living in Rome.

As I have already mentioned, Carthage had been a full-blown superpower of the ancient world, every bit the equal of Rome in the West. Even after Rome conquered Carthage, the city did not go away. It continued to flourish for many centuries afterward, and other large cities of Africa (such as Hippo Regius, Tipasa, Curculum/Djemila, Thamugadi/Timgad, and Sitifis/Setif) also thrived, many as commercial centers.

Further proof of Africa’s centrality is the name of the sea that it borders: the Mediterranean Sea.1 “Mediterranean” in Latin means in “the middle of the earth.” This sea is in the middle of everything: Rome sat on the north side of the sea that was in the middle of everything, and Carthage sat on the south side of the sea that was in the middle of everything. Even conceptually, Africa was not on the edge of the Roman world. It sat at its center.

Africa was also at the heart of the early Christian world. To convince you of this, I may first need to correct a common but incorrect idea.

In thinking about the overall historical relationship between Christianity and Africa, we need to be aware of the impact of the colonial period. There is no denying that European colonial powers did some awful things in other parts of the world, including on the continent of Africa, in their pursuit of military influence and wealth. It is also true that in some contexts the colonial powers tried to enforce their cultural values, traditions, and religion on the people they controlled. Any honest historian, including church historians, must acknowledge this.

However, an additional assumption is sometimes made: because European missionaries brought Christianity with them, Christianity represents colonial oppression and is not authentically African.

This assumption is categorically false. Christianity has been in Africa since the beginning. In fact, it is very likely that there were Christians in Africa before there were Christians in Europe. The man who helped Jesus carry the cross, Simon of Cyrene, was from the north coast of Africa. Very early traditions state that the apostle Matthew traveled as far south as Ethiopia, and Mark, the Gospel author, has been known as the apostle to Egypt. When it comes to Christianity, Africa did not come late to the party. Africa was there at the beginning.

The current growth of Christianity on the continent, therefore, is not something new. It is a return to the region’s own roots.

Africa belongs at the center of Christian history, beginning in the early church. This is one of the main themes of this book. In the chapters that follow, I will attempt to show you the following:

1. The African church, as much as that in any other region, had to deal with the greatest threat to the survival of the early church: persecution and martyrdom.
2. African theologians and leaders undoubtedly shaped the development of Christian doctrine on core questions.
3. Some issues faced by the ancient African church are still present in parts of the Christian world today, even if in a different form.

I will not discuss every issue and every important figure in the early African church. That is beyond the scope of this project. Here we are examining only a few turning points—but turning points that are critical to understanding the development of the early church as a whole.

I divided this book into five parts: Perpetua and Felicity, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, the Donatist Controversy, and Augustine of Hippo. Each part has three chapters. A part begins with a chapter introducing the historical context (“Life and Times”) of the person or people involved. The two chapters that follow dive more deeply into particular issues or questions. Each chapter is introduced with a statement of the key ideas that are discussed in that chapter.

At times, the book will explore the history of some deep theological questions, but I have written in a way that will, I hope, present the main points clearly. Other theologians and historians would perhaps want me to go into the nuances of all these points, but that is not the intention of this book. Those who are interested in reading more (and more deeply) about various topics will find a list of additional resources at the back of the book.

Thank you for joining me on this journey through our past. I am excited to introduce you to some key figures who struggled, sacrificed, and even died to preserve the ancient faith that has come down to us.

  

1. During the empire, the Romans often referred to this as “Our Sea,” but the name “Mediterranean” still developed from an understanding of the importance of the area around it.

Part 1: Perpetua and Felicity

2
The Life and Times of the Early Martyrs

Key Ideas

• The Romans killed Christians because they refused to worship the traditional gods and were seen as a threat to the Roman way of life.
• Other rumors spread that accused Christians of being cannibals and committing incest.
• Early periods of persecution were local and sporadic, not constant and widespread.

In this first section of the book we are going to study the Passion of Perpetua and Felicity, an account of the death of a group of Christians in Carthage in 202 or 203 CE. In order to set the context for this story, we need to understand the historical situation that led to the persecution of Christians. Along the way, we will also address some myths about this period of history.

I will structure the conversation in this chapter around two questions: (1) Why would Roman government officials want to kill Christians? and (2) Where and when were Christians killed? Once we understand these issues, we will be able to appreciate more fully the Passion of Perpetua and Felicity (and many other early Christian martyr texts).

Why Would Roman Government Officials Want to Kill Christians?

The Roman distrust and occasionally violent treatment of Christians was rooted in theology, but not in the way we might think of it. The problem was not what Christians believed, but what they did and were accused of doing or not doing.

Roman religion was fundamentally conservative and relied on a give-and-take relationship between the gods and the people. It was based on what you did, not what you believed. Coming from a Christian perspective, we might think of “religion” as a set of beliefs, but the Romans did not.

The agreement was simple: if the Romans honored the gods with the proper sacrifices, then the gods would bless them and allow Rome to survive and prosper. The relationship with the gods was described in the expression “I give so that you give” (Do ut des). In other words, I give an offering to a god so that the god will give me something in return. From a Roman perspective, this is how it had always been, and this had always worked. The question was not, “Do you believe in Jupiter?” Or, “How is your personal relationship with Venus?” Those questions would not have made sense to them. The question was, “Do you honor the gods with the right sacrifices done the right way?”

Failing to honor the gods was dangerous for everyone. This would anger the gods, and that could mean disaster for the Roman Empire. Whenever Rome suffered a major military defeat or natural disaster, the question was, “Which god did we offend, and how can we fix it?”

This is where Christians enter the picture. The problem was not that Christians worshiped the God of Israel and Jesus Christ as Lord. The problem was that they refused to honor the Roman gods through offering sacrifices and participating in public festivals to honor those gods. The Romans believed in many different gods, so a person could worship God or any other gods of their choosing. They just had to keep honoring the traditional Roman gods as well.

The primary charge against Christians, therefore, was atheism. Atheism? That may sound strange to our ears because modern Christians would think of ancient Romans as the ones who fa...