Chapter 2: Origen among Christians and Jews in Alexandria and Caesarea
Chapter 2
Origen among Christians and Jews in Alexandria and Caesarea
Origen and the church in Alexandria75
The church in Alexandria in Origen’s time was a very mixed group of people comprising Jews and gentiles, heterodox gnostic Christians and legalistic Christians, Christians who held Marcion’s view that the Hebrew Scriptures should not be used by Christians and Christians who were circumcised and wanted to observe the Mosaic law. Various gnostic Christians, such as Basilides, led schools in Alexandria as did the Hebrew Christian Pantaenus and his pupil Clement of Alexandria.
We do not know how Christianity first reached Alexandria. The Pauline mission described in the Acts of the Apostles moved northwest from Antioch toward Rome. Nothing is said of the evangelization of Egypt and the north African coast in this earliest description of the expansion of Christianity. Luke refers to African nations only three times in the Acts of the Apostles; Egypt and Libya are mentioned in the list of countries from which Jews present at Pentecost had come; Philip is said to have evangelized a court official from Ethiopia who was on his way home from Jerusalem;76 and later Apollos, described as a Jew from Alexandria, eloquent and well-educated in Scripture, is introduced as coming to Ephesus and preaching Jesus there.77 The majority of ancient manuscripts of Acts 18:25 say nothing about where Apollos had learned about Jesus, but the fifth-century manuscript codex D records that he had been “instructed in the word of the Lord in his fatherland.” This reading, if correct, would indicate that there were Christians in Egypt very early. Carl Holladay, in his recent critical commentary on Acts, suggests that the tense of the verb used in the reading of the majority of manuscripts, which say that Apollos “had been instructed in the way of the Lord,” “invites us to imagine a previous period of instruction in Alexandria.”78 Neither the verb tense nor the reading in Codex D provides conclusive evidence, of course, but if Apollos did learn about Jesus in Alexandria, the most likely first evangelists to preach Jesus there were those Jews from Egypt who Luke says were present at Pentecost.79 Whoever the first preachers of Jesus in Alexandria were, the earliest Christians in Alexandria most likely came from the Jewish community. Alexandria was home to the largest diaspora community of Jews in the first century A.D.
There was a contingent of Christians from the Jewish community in the Alexandrian church when Origen was there. These Jewish Christians are not to be identified with those referred to as Ebionites by the larger church and labeled heretical. The Jewish Christians in Alexandria may, however, have met as a church separately from the gentile churches, probably meeting in the areas where they lived. The first Christians met in homes, and probably in homes of Christians located nearest to themselves. Alexandria was the second largest city in the empire at that time, with approximately a half-million residents, and it was separated into five districts that were populated primarily by different ethnic groups. The Jews lived in two of these districts. The Jewish Christians in Alexandria most likely met in homes in the Jewish sections of the city. There was a gospel called the Gospel of the Hebrews that seems to have been in use among these Jewish Christians in Alexandria. Origen knew of this gospel for he cites from it twice in works that we still possess. In the second book of his Commentary on John, which was written in Alexandria, he says, “if someone accepts the Gospel according to the Hebrews,” and then quotes a statement from it.80 His introduction of the statement is curious in that he does not speak against the gospel though he does not accept it himself as equal to the four Gospels recognized by the church. It may have been his respect for his fellow Jewish Christians who did recognize this gospel that led him to introduce it in such a neutral fashion. Origen makes several references in his Alexandrian works to a person he designates simply as “the Hebrew.” It is clear from some of the teachings he attributes to this person that “the Hebrew” was a Christian. Origen clearly respected this man deeply. He seems to have been a figure in Origen’s early life, for it appears that he was dead before Origen began writing his treatises.
Alexandria had long been a center for heterodox Christianity, hosting at different times such well-known gnostic Christians as Basilides, Valentinus, Heracleon, and Carpocrates. Marcion may have spent some time there; his disciple Apelles certainly later spent time in Alexandria. Beyond these well-known leaders of heterodoxy there were others, such as the man named Paul that Eusebius says shared the home of the lady in Alexandria with Origen when Origen’s father had been martyred. Origen often groups Marcion, Basilides, and Valentinus together when he refers to views he considered heretical. At the other far end of the theological scale from the gnostic-type Christians were those of a legalistic bent who insisted on reading Scripture literally and, to some extent at least, keeping the law of Moses. In a comment on John 1:13, where the narrator speaks of those born, “Not from blood, or the will of flesh or the will of man but from God,” Origen says, clearly with such legalists in mind,
And consider . . . if it is possible that the person who thinks he is pious and a son of God by offering perceptible sacrifices that are in accordance with the law is [in fact] a son of blood. For these people think they are pleasing to God through slaughters and the shedding of blood. . . . They prefer to please the will of the flesh when they are circumcised in the flesh and wish to embrace Judaism openly with no concern for the heart and the Judaism which is in secret.81
These words would have been in one of the lost books of the Commentary on John, which were written in Alexandria.82 In another Alexandrian writing, Origen attacks Christians who misunderstand what Scripture says about the future resurrection and the life that is promised thereafter. He does not group such people among the heterodox. He says they are “some of our own people” who either because they lack intellect or education hold unworthy views of the resurrection of the body and the nature of the life that is to follow this life. He describes such people as those who read the law literally in lieu of the labor of thinking, and consequently derive a false understanding of what Scripture teaches.83
Clement of Alexandria, whose time in Alexandria overlapped with the very early life of Origen, was born in the mid-second century in Athens. His parents were not Christians, and we know nothing about his conversion. What we know about his early life is what he tells us himself. He travelled widely to study with various teachers, whom he refers to as being in Greece, Magna Graecia, Syria, the East, and finally a Hebrew from Palestine whom he found in Egypt. The latter was Pantaenus, who had a school in Alexandria. These all appear to have been Christian teachers, for Clement refers to their preserving the teaching derived from the apostles.84
A number of Clement’s writings have been preserved, which is unique among Alexandrian Christians who wrote in the late second and early third century. The writings are addressed to a cultured, educated audience. They are quietly apologetic as Clement attempts to present the Christian faith winsomely and convincingly to the Alexandrian intelligentsia. The title “Apostle to the Intellectual,” once suggested for the twentieth-century theologian Paul Tillich, would be appropriate for Clement.85 Clement took a positive approach to philosophy, considering it to be God’s gift to the Greeks in the same way that the law was to the Hebrews. He did not, however, sell out, so to speak, to Greek philosophy, at least in his own understanding. He insisted that even if his teaching was expressed differently than what one might find in Scripture, its source and meaning was to be found in Scripture. The role of philosophy in relation to Scripture was that of a preparatory discipline preparing the soul for the true faith.86 This view of philosophy’s usefulness is very similar to what Origen later wrote to his former student Gregory about philosophy being preparatory instruction for the study of Scripture.87 Henry Chadwick once labeled Clement “The liberal Puritan” and said, “Clement is Hellenized to the core of his being, yet unreserved in his adhesion to the Church in the sense of being wholly opposed to Gnosticism and bound to the authority of scripture as inspired revelation by which alone he has certitude concerning God’s will and purpose.”88
Origen’s relationship with Clement is a mystery. Neither ever mentions the other in their preserved works. This makes it unlikely, though not impossible, that Eusebius is correct when he says that Origen had been a student of Clement.89 If Clement was among the teachers who fled from Alexandria during the persecution in the reign of Septimius Severus,90 when Origen’s father was martyred, this might explain why Origen never mentions him in his writings. In a portion of a letter from Alexander of Jerusalem to Origen quoted by Eusebius, Alexander refers to Pantaenus and Clement as honored men of blessed memory and then remarks that it was through them that he had come to know Origen.91 That shows that Alexander saw some kind of connection between the three men. There are some similarities between Clement’s approach to the Christian faith and that of Origen. Stroumsa has pointed out that Clement understood Christians to be divided into two classes, the simple, who were believers, and the perfect, who were knowers, which is the meaning of the word “gnostic.” Clement used the term “gnostics” of those Christians who looked deeper into the meaning of scriptural texts in search of esoteric meanings. (He did not mean it in the technical sense that it usually has in Christian usage when those such as Basilides are labeled “gnostics.”) Corresponding to these two classes of Christians, Clement also believed that there are two levels of understanding Scripture: a literal or surface meaning and a deeper or hidden, secret meaning.92 Origen used these same two categories of both people and Scripture.93 Did Origen learn these distinctions from Clement? Or, did both Clement and Origen learn them from Pantaenus? Unfortunately, we cannot answer these questions. Eusebius tells us that already as a child under the instruction of his father Origen was looking for deeper meaning in Scriptural texts.94 That suggests that such ideas may have been in the air, so to speak, in the Alexandrian context. Clement was definitely a factor in the Christian culture in Alexandria that Origen shared even though direct links between the two cannot be established with certainty. It was in this diverse Christian community that Origen did his work in Alexandria.
Origen and the Jewish Community at Caesarea
Origen undoubtedly had contact with the Jewish community in Alexandria. The majority of Jews he knew in Alexandria, however, seem to have been those who had become Christians, such as the man Origen occasionally refers to as “the Hebrew.” Philo was one Jewish author whose writings Origen certainly knew when he was in Alexandria. Origen’s contact with him, however, was purely literary. Philo had been dead more than a century when Origen lived in Alexandria. Philo had, however, written extensively and most of his writings were on sections of the Old Testament books of the Law. Philo understood the Jewish religion from the perspective of Plato’s philosophy and read the Mosaic books allegorically. We know that Origen had access to and had read many, if not all, of Philo’s works. Some modern scholars of Philo have suggested that Origen may have copied all of Philo’s works and had them in his personal library. It has also been suggested by some that Origen’s copies of Philo’s works may be the chief source of the works of Philo that we possess today.
Origen, as most ancient writers, rarely mentions the sources he draws on in his writings. Philo is one of the few authors Origen sometimes names in his writings in reference to something he is saying. He mentions Philo’s name in three separate places, once recommending what Philo has written as an important source for understanding a particular passage in Genesis.95 There are also at least twenty-three additional passages where it is rather certain that Origen is referring to Philo, but his name is not mentioned. In these anonymous references Origen usually introduces the reference with a vague phrase such as “one of my predecessors says,” or “someone says.” The statement that follows such a phrase often resembles a viewpoint expressed by Philo.
Origen was aware, of course, that Philo was a Jew. He saw himself, nevertheless, standing in the same exegetical tradition as Philo. He never criticizes Philo’s exegesis; he rarely even disagrees with it. On the one occasion that he clearly does disagree, he still introduces Philo’s position very respectfully: “And Philo,” he says “who is also well-respected among intelligent people for many of his treatises on the Mosaic Law, says . . . .”96 Origen saw himself and Philo as being on the same side, so to speak, in their interpretation of Scripture. He clearly had a very positive attitude toward the writings of this Jewish philosopher and exegete.
When Origen moved from Alexandria to Caesarea he encountered a much smaller city, but a city with a strong and active Jewish presence. In addition to the synagogue there was a thriving rabbinical academy. Approximately two years before Origen took up residence in Caesarea Rabbi Hoshaya established a school there (A.D. 230). Hoshaya died about 250 and Origen about 254. Their time in Caesarea, therefore, was largely coextensive. Hoshaya was considered the preeminent rabbinic authority of his time. Students flocked to his academy and some of them became outstanding rabbis in the following generation. Origen too, by this time, was a widely known and respected Christian teacher and interpreter of Scripture. He also started a school in Caesarea that attracted many students who later became significant leaders in the church.
It is highly probable that Origen had contact and conversations with a number of these rabbis, possibly even Hoshaya himself, but no proof exists. Many unsuccessful attempts have been made to show conversations between Hoshaya and Origen. Neither of the two men, however, is ever named as a dialogue partner. In the Contra Celsum, written late in his life in Caesarea, Origen refers to earlier conversations that he has had with Jews considered to be “wise,” but he never mentions any names.97 His remark that these conversation partners were considered “wise” by the Jews suggests that they were rabbis who were well-known for their teachings.
Maren Niehoff has argued that “Origen and the rabbis” were “lively discussion partners, highly aware of each other’s interpretations.” Origen, she says, takes explicit note of Jewish exegesis; the rabbis, on the other hand, do not mention an alternative interpretation, but seem to have taken Origen’s view into account in formulating their own in some passages.98 In another essay she compares Origen’s comments in the fragmentary remains of his commentary on Genesis with views expressed in the rabbinic Genesis Rabbah and concludes that Origen “clearly formulated his own thoughts on the book of Genesis in light of the views of his rabbinic colleagues in the Land of Israel. . . . Moreover, the rabbis contributing to Genesis Rabbah seem to have been aware of certain interpretations offered by Origen.”99
There are several passages scattered through Origen’s writings produced at Caesarea that speak of interaction with Jewish leaders. These leaders are not named, unfortunately, but the passages are significant, nevertheless, in showing the varied nature of Origen’s contacts with the Jewish community there. Some of the interactions were friendly and others confrontational. In some Origen presents himself as the learner, in others as the teacher, and in yet others, defender against what he considered hostile attacks on the church.
When Origen discusses Matthew 15:1–2 in his Caesarean Commentary on Matthew—where Matthew describes the Pharisees accusing Jesus’ disciples of not keeping the tradition of the elders, and Jesus’ subsequent shifting of the discussion to the issue of how the Pharisees violated the law of God about honoring father and mother by their crafty application of one of the traditions of the elders—Origen says he would not have understood the issue “had not one of the Hebrews called our attention to what is in the passage.”100 This discussion between Origen and an unnamed Jew seems to have been collegial. There is no debate or argument between them. A Jew points out to Origen how one of their traditions worked and how this applied to the passage of Scripture in the Gospel of Matthew that Origen must have been working on at the time. We do not know whether Origen had raised the question to his Jewish conversation partner or whether he had been present when the tradition about Corban was being discussed by some Jewish scholars and had perceived how this applied to the passage in Matthew’s Gospel. However, it happened, it shows Origen’s willingness to learn from the rabbis in Caesarea, and it shows that not all of his encounters with them were argumentative.
There is another clear example of Origen learning from a Jewish scholar in Caesarea that lacks any indication of a polemical relation between them. This occurs in a Greek fragment from Origen’s lost commentary on the Psalms that he wrote in Caesarea. The discussion concerns how one ascertains the authorship of psalms where no author is indicated in the psalm text. This conversation was with Ioullus, who Origen says was the patriarch, and another Jewish man considered wise. Unfortunately, Ioullus has never been successfully identified. What Origen learned was that among the Jews, psalms lacking the name of an author in their inscriptions were considered to have been written by the person named as author in the preceding psalm. Origen’s account indicates that there was a disagreement between himself and Ioullus on the number of psalms to be attributed to Moses. It was, however, the kind of disagreement that is common among scholars arguing over the interpretation of a text.101
More of an argumentative tone is evident in Origen’s treatment of Matthew’s passage about divorce in Matthew 19. The discussion is cast as an imaginary argument, but it must represent actual conversations Origen had been involved in with Jewish scholars. “But perhaps some Jewish man,” he says, “will dare to oppose our Savior’s teaching and say that Jesus . . . permitted divorcing a wife like Moses did.” He goes on to say that the Jewish man will claim that Moses’ words about the discovery of “a shameful deed in her” are the same as Jesus’ words about “sexual immorality.” Origen counters with the argument that the law demanded that a wife involved in adultery be stoned, which eliminated the point of writing a bill of divorce and cancelled out the identification of Moses’ reference to a “shameful deed” with Jesus’ words about “sexual immorality.”102
In a reference to Matthew 11:12–13 about clean and unclean foods, he alludes to accusations from Jews that the Christians do not obey the food laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, which prompts his response that Jesus is teaching through the words in Matthew 11 that “we are not to think that the goal in Scripture lies in the common understanding of these words.”103 On the other hand, he also knows that there are Christians who follow Jewish customs. He applies Jesus’ warning about the “leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees” in Matthew 16:6 “to those who choose to live physically as the Jews do along with living as Christians.”104
Not everything, however, was congenial between Origen and the synagogue. He can also lash out angrily at Jewish attitudes toward Christians as he does in the following passage from his Commentary on Matthew when he comments on Jesus’ last days in Jerusalem when he is handed over by the Jewish priesthood to the Romans for torture and death.
But if, according to a certain way of signifying things, humans are the city [he means Jerusalem], even now Jesus is delivered in Jerusalem . . . to the Jews who claim to be serving God. And those who are high priests, as it were, and the scholars, who boast that they interpret the divine scriptures, condemn Jesus to death by their evil speech against him. They are always handing Jesus over to the Gentiles, mocking him and his teaching among themselves, and tongue-lashing the worship of God through Jesus Christ. They themselves crucify him by their anathemas and their desire to destroy his teaching.105
That, and similar passages, show that not everything in Caesarea was congenial between Origen and the synagogue.
Origen reflects a very definite tension between the church and the synagogue in his exegesis of the Song of Songs. “I am black and beautiful, O daughters of Jerusalem” the biblical text says, “Do no gaze on me because I am dark.”106 Origen identifies the black bride as the church of the gentiles and the daughters of Jerusalem as the synagogue. He understands the daughters of Jerusalem to vilify the bride as ugly because she is black.107 The “daughters of Jerusalem” are the Jews, whom Paul identified as “most dear because of the election of the fathers, but enemies because of the gospel.”108 Origen’s choice of this Pauline statement to identify the “daughters of Jerusalem” suggests the tension he felt in his dealings with the synagogue. He was vividly aware—primarily because of the Pauline arguments in Romans 9–11—of the importance of the ancestry of the Jews in the divine plan of salvation. But on the other hand, he was also intensely aware of the current hostility of the synagogue to the church. The “daughters of Jerusalem,” he says, disdain the bride because she is not descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, nor was she a recipient of the teachings of the Mosaic law.109 The verbs Origen chooses to express this attitude of the synagogue to the church are much stronger than anything that appears in the text of Song of Songs 1:5–6. In the biblical text, the bride says to the daughters of Jerusalem, “Do not look at me because I am blackened” (my italics). Origen, however, says the daughters of Jerusalem “despise” the church from the gentiles and “vilify” it “because of its lowly origins.”
He further identifies the church of the gentiles with the Ethiopian woman that Moses married.110 Just as Miriam and Aaron had opposed Moses’ marriage to the Ethiopian so the synagogue, identified with Miriam, and the Jewish priesthood, identified with Aaron, opposed the church of the gentiles.111
The Caesarean Rabbi Isaac related a parable in relation to Song of Songs 1:6 that Reuven Kimelman considers to have been a response to Origen’s interpretation of the verse. The parable goes as follows:
It happened once that a provincial lady had a black maidservant who went down with a companion to draw water from the spring, and she said to the companion: Tomorrow my master is going to divorce his wife and marry me. Why? Asked the other. She replied: Because he saw her hands stained. Retorted the other: Foolish woman, listen to what you are saying. Here is his wife whom he loves exceedingly, and you say he is going to divorce her because once he saw her hands stained. How then will he tolerate you who are stained all over and black from the day of your birth? . . . If the sun of idolatry has tanned us, you are darkened from birth. While you were still in your mother’s womb you served idols.112
Rabbi Isaac’s story suggests bitterness on the side of the synagogue in the debate with the church about who constituted the people of God. It cannot be missed that the servant girl in the story is considered to hold not just a false, but a stupid opinion about herself and her relationship with her master. Origen’s remarks in a homily on Exodus delivered in this same general time in Caesarea show a similar rancorous attitude on the part of the church to the synagogue as he identifies the gentile church as the true Israel instead of that Israel “according to the flesh.” He says to his gentile congregation as he interprets Exodus 20:3, “These words are addressed much more to you who were made Israel spiritually by living for God. . . . For although we are Gentiles in the flesh, in spirit we are Israel . . . .”113
Origen’s relationship with the Jewish community at Caesarea was mixed. He had some congenial, collegial relationships with some of the community, at least, but he also had some serious confrontational issues with others. Matthew 13:53–54 speaks of Jesus completing his teaching in a certain area and then returning to his fatherland where he began to teach in the synagogue. The people in the synagogue were amazed at his teaching but also dismissive of it, questioning where he got his knowledge, since he was “the carpenter’s son.” Origen says on this passage:
And if anyone carefully observes Jesus Christ, “a stumbling-block to the Jews” by whom he is persecuted even now, but who is preached and has been accepted in faith among the Gentiles . . . , he will see that Jesus has no honor in his own fatherland, but he is honored by the Gentiles, the strangers “to the covenant.” The evangelists have not recorded what he said when he was teaching in their synagogue, but described it as so great and of such a kind that everyone was amazed. It is likely that what was said went beyond their scripture. But “he was teaching in their synagogue,” neither separating from it nor rejecting it.114
The final statement is important for understanding Origen’s attitude toward the Jews in Caesarea. Jesus, even though disputed and attacked in the synagogue, did not abandon it, nor did Origen abandon his interaction with the synagogue, even if sometimes it was tense.
Origen is often referred to in connection with Alexandria, sometimes being called Origen of Alexandria and at others simply the Alexandrian. This Alexandrian connection may rest on the fact that he was born and educated there, or that he has traditionally been labeled with a method of exegesis associated with Alexandria.115 He also began his career as a writer there, though what remains of that, except for brief fragments and references in other works, is only the first two books of the Commentary on John and the On First Principles. The majority of his most important works were produced at Caesarea, and certainly the majority of his works that are extant today. It was at Caesarea that Origen matured as a scholar and exegete of Scripture; it was also at Caesarea that he had the experience of regularly addressing the assembly of the church in homilies on Scripture, many of which have been preserved. Origen’s Caesarean experience was not a small footnote in the volume of his life. The synagogue, academy, and church at Caesarea are at least as important in understanding Origen, if not more so, than his contacts with the scholarly secular and heterodox culture of Alexandria. He should be remembered as Origen of Alexandria and Caesarea.
Questions for Discussion
1.How did the church in Alexandria in Origen’s time differ from the church with which you are acquainted?
2.Do you think the evidence points to Origen having been a student of Clement of Alexandria? Provide some reasons for your answer.
3.Would you describe Origen’s relationship with the Jewish community at Caesarea as positive or negative?
4.Do you think the milieu of the city of Alexandria or of Caesarea was more important in terms of influencing Origen? Why?
75. For a more detailed discussion of this subject see Heine, Origen: Scholarship, 26–64.
76. See Acts 2:5–10; 8:26–39.
77. See Acts 18:24–25.
78. Holladay, Acts, 362–63.
79. See Pearson, “Earliest Christianity,” 134–36.
80. ComJn 2.87, trans. Origen, Commentary, FOTC 80, 116; see also HomJer 15.4, trans. Origen: Homilies on Jeremiah, FOTC 97, 161, and Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men 2 (NPNF 2, 362).
81. FragJn 8; see Rom 2:28–29.
82. Books 1–2 are extant and reach only John 1:7. Book 6, which was the beginning point for Origen’s resumed work in Caesarea, begins with commentary on John 1:19. The excerpts preserved of Books 4 and 5 do not contain any commentary on John.
83. Princ 2.10.3; 2.11.2 (Origen On First Principles, trans. Butterworth, 140–41; 147–48).
84. Clement, Stromata 1.1.
85. Brown, Ultimate Concern, 193.
86. Clement, Stromata 1.5.28.3; 7.3.20.2.
87. Origen, EpistGreg, 1.
88. Chadwick, Early Christian Thought, 64.
89. See Eusebius, H.E. 6.6.1.
90. Eusebius, H.E. 6.3.1.
91. Eusebius, H.E. 6.14.9.
92. Stroumsa, “Clement, Origen,” 55–56.
93. See Commentary of Origen on Matthew, Vol. 1, 7–14.
94. Eusebius, H.E. 6.2.9.
95. Cels 4.51; 6.21; ComMt 15.3.
96. ComMt 15.3.
97. Cels 1.45, 55; 2.31.
98. Niehoff, “Origen’s Commentaries on the Old Testament.”
99. Niehoff, “Origen’s Commentary on Genesis,” 152.
100. ComMt 11.9.
101. PG 12.1056B-1057C.
102. ComMt 14.24.
103. ComMt 11.12.
104. ComMt 12.5.
105. ComMt 16.3.
106. Song of Songs 1:5–6 (NRSV).
107. ComCant 2.1.1.
108. Rom 11:28.
109. ComCant 2.1.3–4, trans. Origen: The Song of Songs, ACW 26, 92.
110. Num 12:1.
111. ComCant 2.1.22–23, trans. Origen: The Song of Songs, ACW 26, 96–97. See Heine, Origen: Scholarship, 211–14.
112. Kimelman, “Rabbi Yohanan,” 593.
113. HomEx 8.2, trans. Origen, Homilies on Genesis and Exodus, FOTC 71, 320.
114. ComMt 10.16, trans. Commentary of Origen on Matthew, Vol. 1, 49, my emphasis.
115. Origen’s exegesis will be discussed below in chapter 3.