Origen's Use of Ammonius in Commentary on Matthew [17]

 

Work	Passage	Greek textual indicators of Ammonian-style pericope / unit use	Strength as witness for Ammonius-style unit thinking
Origen, Commentary on Matthew	10.4 (Matt 13:44, with 13:45–46 grouped)	Origen anchors the discussion on a fixed incipit: «Πάλιν ὁμοία ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν…», treating Matt 13:44 as a discrete saying-unit identifiable by its opening formula. He immediately groups it with “the next two” («ταύτην δὲ καὶ τὰς ἑξῆς αὐτῆς δύο»), indicating conscious block-formation rather than linear exposition. The grouping is justified by a scene-setting marker (“ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ… πρὸς τοὺς μαθητάς”), which functions as a unit-boundary criterion separating these sayings from those spoken to the crowds. Origen then performs rubric analysis: earlier items are explicitly labeled παραβολή, whereas these are not («ἐπὶ δὲ τούτων τὸ αὐτὸ οὐ πεποίηκεν»). This is an argument from editorial tagging consistency, treating the Gospel as a document with stable internal classification habits. He resolves the classification problem by cross-Gospel lexical control, citing Mark’s juxtaposition of ὁμοίωσις and παραβολή («Τίνι ὁμοιώσωμεν… ἢ ἐν τίνι αὐτὴν παραβολῇ θῶμεν;») to demonstrate that the two terms denote distinct though related categories. The ensuing genus/species and homonymy discussion formalizes this as a taxonomy of unit-types, not merely semantic nuance.	High — Although no explicit boundary formula like καὶ ἐγένετο appears, Origen is clearly operating with pericope-level control: isolating an incipit-defined unit, grouping adjacent sayings into a single block, using scene shifts as segmentation markers, and deciding unit identity by rubric practice and cross-Gospel comparison. This is exactly the kind of classificatory reasoning presupposed by Ammonius-style unit thinking.

Origen's Use of Ammonius in Commentary on Matthew [16]

 

Work	Passage	Greek textual indicators of Ammonian-style pericope / unit use	Strength as witness for Ammonius-style unit thinking
Origen, Commentary on Matthew	10.16 (Matt 13:53–58: close of the parable block and transition to Nazareth)	Origen opens by quoting and isolating a formal Matthean seam-marker: «Καὶ ἐγένετο, ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὰς παραβολὰς ταύτας, μετῆρεν ἐκεῖθεν». He treats this not devotionally but structurally, asking what textual material the demonstrative «ταύτας» actually delimits. The entire discussion turns on the scope of a closure formula, exactly the sort of phrase that defines a pericope boundary. Origen explicitly frames the problem as documentary: either (a) prior distinctions must be abandoned, or (b) there are two genera of παραβολαί, or (c) παραβολή is homonymous, or (d) the closure applies only to a subset of the preceding material. This is segmentation analysis, not theology. He then constrains the boundary by appeal to another Matthean control statement («ὑμῖν δέδοται γνῶναι… τοῖς δὲ λοιποῖς ἐν παραβολαῖς»), using it to rule out certain boundary-extensions as textually impossible. After fixing the end of the teaching-unit, Origen checks the transition against Mark: «Καὶ ἦλθεν εἰς τὴν πατρίδα αὐτοῦ», confirming that Matthew’s movement-seam corresponds to a Markan seam at the same narrative joint. The Mark citation functions as external confirmation of the pericope break, not as casual harmonization. Even the subsequent discussion of “πατρίδα” (Nazareth vs. Bethlehem vs. Judaea) presupposes a stable, shared narrative slot whose wording choice is meaningful precisely because the unit is fixed.	Very high — This is one of the clearest witnesses to Ammonius-style unit thinking. Origen explicitly treats «καὶ ἐγένετο, ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν…» as a boundary rubric, debates its range, tests competing segmentations, and then verifies the boundary by alignment with Mark. The reasoning only works if Matthew is already read as a text articulated into discrete pericopes whose closures and transitions are analytically significant.

Origen's Use of Ammonius in Commentary on Matthew [15]

 

Work	Passage	Greek textual indicators of Ammonian-style pericope / unit use	Strength as witness for Ammonius-style unit thinking
Origen, Commentary on Matthew	10.19 (Nazareth pericope: “not many mighty works” / “could do no mighty work”)	Origen begins with an explicit pericope-local deictic: «ἔστιν ἰδεῖν… ἐκεῖ» and immediately anchors the exegetical problem to a single scene-slot (“there,” i.e., the Nazareth episode). The pericope-engine shows up as a precision alignment of Matthew with Mark at one narrative coordinate: Matthew’s «οὐκ ἐποίησεν ἐκεῖ δυνάμεις πολλὰς διὰ τὴν ἀπιστίαν αὐτῶν» is set directly against Mark’s parallel «οὐκ ἠδύνατο ἐκεῖ οὐδεμίαν ποιῆσαι δύναμιν». Origen’s method is then microscopically lexical: «Πρόσχες… οὐ γὰρ εἶπεν “οὐκ ἤθελεν” ἀλλ’ “οὐκ ἠδύνατο”»—a distinction that only matters if these are treated as strictly corresponding pericope reports rather than loosely similar themes. He reads the Markan “inability” as a pericope-internal constraint (recipient faith as συνεργία / συμπρᾶξις), and he then insists on Mark’s own intra-unit qualifier: «Εἰ μὴ ὀλίγοις ἀρρώστοις… ἐθεράπευσε», which modulates “could do none” into “could do only a limited amount,” yielding a tight reconciliation with Matthew’s “not many.” The comparative network that follows (disciples’ failure: «Διὰ τί οὐκ ἠδυνήθημεν…» / Jesus’ answer «Διὰ τὴν ὀλιγοπιστίαν ὑμῶν»; Peter: «Ὀλιγόπιστε…»; hemorrhaging woman and «δύναμιν ἐξελθοῦσαν ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ») functions as a set of parallel “faith–power” units deployed to explain this unit; they are invoked because they share the same pericope-logic, not because Origen is prooftexting at random. He closes with an overt “calibration” claim about evangelists’ diction: «ἀκριβῶς… ὁ Ματθαῖος καὶ ὁ Μᾶρκος…»—they choose wording to display that δύναμις “can” operate even amid ἀπιστία, but “not to the same extent” as amid πίστις. That is a classic canon-table habit: meaning extracted from micro-variance inside a fixed pericope correspondence.	High — Not a unit-incpit passage (“Ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ…”) but still strongly Ammonian in operation: Origen treats “Nazareth” as a bounded pericope, aligns Matthew/Mark at the exact same narrative slot, and builds his interpretation out of their lexical variance (“οὐκ ἐποίησεν… πολλὰς” vs “οὐκ ἠδύνατο… οὐδεμίαν,” plus Mark’s “εἰ μὴ…” qualifier). This is pericope-comparison logic all the way down.

Origen's Use of Ammonius in Commentary on Matthew [14]

Work	Passage	Greek textual indicators of Ammonian-style pericope / unit use	Strength as witness for Ammonius-style unit thinking
Origen, Commentary on Matthew	10.20–10.22 (Herod hears of Jesus; “This is John”; narration of John’s arrest; Matt 14:1–2 and the expansion toward 14:3ff.)	Origen keys off a scene-heading / unit-incpit: «Ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ…»—a classic Matthean hinge that in practice signals a new block. He immediately treats it as a three-Gospel parallel unit: «Παρὰ δὲ τῷ Μάρκῳ οὕτως καὶ παρὰ τῷ Λουκᾷ οὕτως», i.e. “this pericope exists in Mark and Luke too,” not as scattered verbal overlap but as a synchronized dossier. He then labels his question explicitly as pericope-local: «Τὸ οὖν ζητούμενον κατὰ τὸν τόπον ἐστίν…» (“what is being investigated in this place/passage”), which is Origen’s most overt marker that he is working inside a bounded unit. His argument proceeds by testing the pericope’s claim (“Jesus = John raised”) against (a) contemporary Jewish δόξαι (Sadducees vs Pharisees), (b) narrative identity-data (Jesus publicly known as “son of the carpenter,” Mary, brothers/sisters vs John son of Zechariah/Elizabeth), and (c) chronology (the ~six-month interval between their births), and he uses those constraints to prune implausible readings (μετενσωμάτωσις) and to prefer a “transfer of δυνάμεις” model, explicitly analogized to the idiom “in spirit and power of Elijah.” Structurally, he also “chains” adjacent pericopes by a numbered sequence: «ἐπεὶ δὲ πρῶτον… δεύτερον… καὶ τρίτον…», linking (1) Jesus withdrawing when John is handed over, (2) John’s prison inquiry (“Are you the coming one?”), (3) Herod’s claim. That is classic unit-tracking: pericope A conditions how pericope B should be read. Finally, he makes a redactional-pericope observation: since “nowhere earlier” had the manner of John’s death been narrated, Matthew now inserts it, Mark parallels, Luke largely omits—a comment that presupposes pericope segmentation and comparison across evangelists.	Very High — This is one of Origen’s clearest “pericope-engine” performances: he treats «Ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ» as a unit-heading, immediately aligns Matthew–Mark–Luke, explicitly frames the exegetical problem “according to the place,” and then builds a pericope-to-pericope scaffold (πρῶτον/δεύτερον/τρίτον) that explains why Matthew expands the unit with John’s arrest/death narrative. It’s strong evidence for a canon-table habit of reading in bounded, cross-Gospel units even though no Ammonian number is cited.

Origen's Use of Ammonius in Commentary on Matthew [13]

Work	Passage	Greek textual indicators of Ammonian-style pericope / unit use	Strength as witness for Ammonius-style unit thinking
Origen, Commentary on Matthew	11.2–11.4 (Feeding of the Five Thousand; Matt 14:16–21, with the bridge to 14:22)	Origen is operating with a bounded narrative block and repeatedly treats it as a retrievable “unit” rather than a continuous-run text. The unit is anchored by pericope-trigger lines treated as governing incipits: «Δότε αὐτοῖς ὑμεῖς φαγεῖν» and the inventory response «οὐκ ἔχομεν ὧδε εἰ μὴ πέντε ἄρτους καὶ δύο ἰχθύας». He then narrates the internal “mechanics” as a fixed pericope-sequence (λάβων → ἀναβλέψας → ηὐλόγησε → κλάσας → ἔδωκε), i.e. he is reading the pericope by stable action-chain rather than by loose allusion. Most diagnostic is the explicit four-Gospel collation inside one story: «παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ καὶ τῷ Μάρκῳ καὶ τῷ Λουκᾷ… ὁ δὲ Ἰωάννης μόνος…» and the way he extracts micro-variants as interpretive levers (John alone: «κριθίνους»; John’s framing: not “we have,” but «ἔστι παιδάριον ὧδε ὃς ἔχει…»). He then aligns the reclining-order detail across parallels as if reading against a harmonized dossier: Mark’s «συμπόσια συμπόσια… πρασιαὶ πρασιαὶ… ἀνὰ ἑκατὸν καὶ πεντήκοντα» vs Luke’s «κλισίας ὡσεὶ ἀνὰ πεντήκοντα», explaining why those are there (τάγματα/graded feeding), while Matthew supplies the simpler base narrative (recline “ἐπὶ τοῦ χόρτου”). The end of the unit is also treated as symbolically “counted” and thus structurally integral (δώδεκα κόφινοι ↔ δώδεκα φυλαί), another sign Origen is reading the pericope as a designed whole. There is no explicit Matthean “other recension” note here (no “κατὰ τινὰ τῶν ἀντιγράφων”), so the strongest “Ammonius shows a different Matthew than my copy” signature is absent; instead the signature is synoptic collation within a single pericope.	High (unit-thinking), Medium-High (synoptic-table habit) — This passage is one of Origen’s clearest demonstrations of pericope-as-indexed-block reading: he treats the Feeding as a discrete unit with an internal action-chain, then explicitly collates Matthew/Mark/Luke/John and interprets their small differences as meaningful (barley; “boy has” vs “we have”; hundreds/fifties ordering). It supports Ammonius-style unit thinking strongly, but it does not by itself show the “Ammonius/source has a different Matthew reading than Origen’s recension” phenomenon that makes 12.15 especially probative.

Origen's Use of Ammonius in Commentary on Matthew [12]

Work	Passage	Greek textual indicators of Ammonian-style pericope / unit use	Strength as witness for Ammonius-style unit thinking
Origen, Commentary on Matthew	11.5–11.7 (Matt 14:22–36; esp. 14:22 “εὐθέως ἠνάγκασεν…”, walking on sea + Gennesaret)	Origen treats the narrative as a single articulated unit whose internal “joints” are repeatedly re-indexed by the same incipit-skeleton: «εὐθέως ἠνάγκασεν… ἐμβῆναι εἰς τὸ πλοῖον… εἰς τὸ πέραν». He explicitly flags the unit-logic as sequential (“εὐθέως μετὰ τὸ τραφῆναι…”) and reads the pericope as a graduated crossing (crowds below → disciples in the boat → “μέσον τῆς θαλάσσης” → “τετάρτη φυλακή” → Jesus aboard → “διαπεράσαντες ἦλθον”). The Mark citation is introduced as a parallel-column micro-variant rather than a mere prooftext: «ὀλίγον ἐναλλάξας τὴν λέξιν ἀνέγραψε καὶ ὁ Μᾶρκος…» and he isolates Mark’s μικρὰ παραλλαγή with explicit comparative language (“ὀλίγη παραλλαγή”, “τι πλεῖον ἐμφαίνοντος”, “διὰ τῆς τοῦ ἄρθρου προσθήκης”). He exploits Mark’s wording differences in a canon-table way: Mark’s «τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ» vs Matthew’s bare «τοὺς μαθητάς» becomes exegetically meaningful; Mark’s added destination («εἰς Βηθσαϊδά») is treated as part of the comparative dossier. There is no claim of a different Matthean recension here (no “τινὰ τῶν ἀντιγράφων” for Matthew), but there is overt synoptic apparatus behavior: compare, name the variation, and interpret the “extra” as semantically weighty.	High (for unit-thinking), Medium-High (for synoptic-table use) — this is one of Origen’s clearest displays of pericope-engine reading: he works at the level of an indexed narrative block, tracks internal seams (“μετὰ τὸ τραφῆναι…”, “μέσον…”, “τετάρτη φυλακή”, “ἀναβάντος… ἐκόπασεν…”, “διαπεράσαντες…”), and then handles Mark not as ornament but as a controlled parallel witness with analysable micro-variation (“ὀλίγη παραλλαγή”). It lacks the decisive “Ammonius shows me a different Matthew reading than my own recension” feature found in 12.15, but it still looks strongly like columnar consultation of parallels at a pericope boundary.

Origen's Use of Ammonius in Commentary on Matthew [11]

Work	Passage	Greek textual indicators of Ammonian-style pericope / unit use	Strength as witness for Ammonius-style unit thinking
Origen, Commentary on Matthew	11.12 (Matt 15:10–20)	Origen opens with a clear incipit + unit span formula: «Καὶ προσκαλεσάμενος τὸν ὄχλον… καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς (15, 10–20)», treating Matt 15:10–20 as a single bounded pericope rather than a sequence of verses. The phrase καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς functions as shorthand for an indexed unit whose internal contents are presupposed. Within this established unit, Origen introduces Mark explicitly as a parallel control: «ἐν τῷ κατὰ τὸν Μᾶρκον… “καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα”». The Markan phrase is not used to resolve a textual variant in Matthew, but to supply an interpretive gloss for the Matthean unit as a whole. No alternative Matthean readings are noted, and Mark does not expose Matthean plurality; instead, Mark is used canonically to fix the meaning and scope of the pericope (“not what enters, but what exits”).	Moderate — this passage shows pericope-level thinking (incipit + span, unit-based exegesis, parallel-Gospel control), consistent with Ammonian-style practice, but not diagnostic of textual plurality. Unlike 12.15, Mark does not reveal a different Matthean reading; he functions as an interpretive headnote for a stable unit rather than as a control for variant alignment.

Origen's Use of Ammonius in Commentary on Matthew [10]

Work	Passage	Greek textual indicators of Ammonian-style pericope / unit use	Strength as witness for Ammonius-style unit thinking
Origen, Commentary on Matthew	12.12 (Matt 16:18 context)	Origen cites Luke explicitly (“ὡς ἐν τῷ κατὰ Λουκᾶν εἴρηται”) and then Matthew explicitly (“τὸ ἐν τῷ κατὰ Ματθαῖον γεγραμμένον”), using both as thematic parallels for the image of the narrow gate. There is no citation of Mark as a parallel control, no triangulation of Matthew–Mark–Luke as witnesses to a single narrative unit, and no discussion of variant readings in Matthew. The Gospel material is deployed illustratively and morally, not synchronically. The logic of the argument does not depend on pericope alignment, demonstratives, or wording correspondence across Gospels.	Very weak / negligible — this passage shows no Ammonian-style unit thinking. Origen is not recognizing an alternative Matthean reading, not stabilizing Matthew by reference to Mark, and not working at a synoptic seam. The cross-Gospel citations are ordinary prooftexting, not evidence of consultation of an Ammonian or proto-Ammonian pericope apparatus.

Origen's Use of Ammonius in Commentary on Matthew [9]

Work	Passage	Greek textual indicators of Ammonian-style pericope / unit use	Strength as witness for Ammonius-style unit thinking
Origen, Commentary on Matthew	12.15 (end)	Origen explicitly recognizes two different Matthean readings at the same narrative point: his working text has διεστείλατο, while κατὰ τινα τῶν ἀντιγράφων Matthew reads ἐπετίμησεν. This alternative Matthean reading coincides verbally with Mark’s ἐπετίμησεν (Mark 8:30) and aligns with Luke’s ἐπιτιμήσας (Luke 9:21). Origen does not infer this from Matthew alone; the variant becomes visible only because Matthew is being read inside a synoptic unit alongside Mark and Luke. Luke’s τοῦτο forces unit-level alignment, and Mark functions as the control witness that exposes the Matthean divergence. The implication is that Origen is consulting (or presupposing) a comparative synoptic source (Ammonius or equivalent) that preserves a Matthean form different from his own recension at this pericope boundary.	Extremely strong 10/10— Origen is not merely harmonizing; he is aware of a Matthean reading mediated by a synoptic apparatus that differs from his base text and is corroborated by Mark/Luke. This is direct evidence of Ammonius-style unit thinking, where aligned pericopes both reveal and evaluate textual plurality within a Gospel.

Origen's Use of Ammonius in Commentary on Matthew [8]

Work	Passage	Greek textual indicators of synoptic / Ammonian-style “unit” coordination	Strength as witness for Ammonius-style unit thinking
Origen, Commentary on Matthew	12.24 (Matt 16:24–27; taking up cross-bearing and self-denial)	The lemma is explicitly Matthean and treated as self-sufficient for most of the exposition. Synoptic movement appears only secondarily, when Origen contrasts John vs. the Synoptics as a bloc on who carries the cross. The key signal is the formal contrastive construction: ὁ μὲν κατὰ τὸν Ἰωάννην … ὁ δὲ κατὰ τὸν Ματθαῖον καὶ Μᾶρκον καὶ Λουκᾶν. Mark is not isolated, not interrogated for wording, and not used to regulate Matthew. There are no boundary formulas (“ἕως,” “καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς”), no variant notices, and no micro-lexical comparison. The synoptic appeal functions theologically (two “conceptions” of the cross: Jesus bearing it himself vs. Simon bearing it) rather than text-critically or pericope-structurally.	Low (3/10). This shows Origen’s comfort moving across Gospels, but not Ammonian-style unit thinking. Mark contributes nothing distinctive and is subsumed within a Synoptic collective. There is no evidence of pericope alignment, synoptic control, or table-like coordination. It is a doctrinal juxtaposition, not a synoptic mechanism.

Origen's Use of Ammonius in Commentary on Matthew [7]

Work	Passage	Greek textual indicators of synoptic / Ammonian-style “unit” coordination	Strength as witness for Ammonius-style unit thinking
Origen, Commentary on Matthew	12.32 (saying: “some standing here… will not taste death…”; Matt 16:28 // Mark 9:1)	This is not a boundary-marker passage (no “ἕως,” “καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς,” etc.) and not a manuscript/recension passage (no “κατὰ τινα τῶν ἀντιγράφων”). Its interest is that Origen explicitly coordinates two distinct Synoptic formulations as the same semantic unit and signals the evangelist-specific idiom. He places in immediate apposition (i) “ἰδεῖν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενον ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ αὐτοῦ” (Matthean phrasing) and (ii) “ἰδεῖν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐληλυθυῖαν ἐν δυνάμει” (Markan phrasing), then labels the latter explicitly as Mark’s way of naming it: “(ὡς ὠνόμασεν ὁ Μᾶρκος) ἐν δυνάμει.” That parenthesis is doing real work: Origen is not just citing Mark; he is mapping evangelist diction (ὠνόμασεν) onto a shared referent. The whole paragraph then oscillates between the two phrasings as equivalent handles for the same experiential/theological content (kingdom “in power,” “within us,” etc.).	High-moderate (6.5/10). It strongly supports synoptic coordination at the unit-of-saying level (the kind of equivalence tables presuppose), but it is not “12.15-type” because Mark is not used to correct Matthew, trigger variant-awareness, or force a boundary decision. It’s conceptual alignment rather than synoptic control or pericope mechanics.