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

Work	Passage	Greek textual indicators of Ammonian-style pericope / unit use	Strength as witness for Ammonius-style unit thinking
Origen, Commentary on Matthew	15.9 (Matt 19:13–15 with synoptic echoes Luke 18:15–17; Mark 10:13–16)	The language does not activate pericope mechanics in an Ammonian sense. Although Origen notes sequence with γέγραπται δὲ <μετὰ τοῦτο>, he immediately neutralizes it by stressing what Matthew did not add (οὐ γὰρ προσέθηκε· καὶ προσευξάμενος) and by explicitly stating that such wording could have been written. No delimiting formula like καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως is used to mark a bounded unit. Luke is cited with a full internal quotation “καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς, ἕως τοῦ…”, but this functions as semantic reinforcement, not as unit alignment. Mark is invoked only to confirm verbal sameness (σχεδὸν ταῖς αὐταῖς λέξεσι). Omission and variation are treated as intentional pedagogical economy, indexed to capacity (χωρεῖν), not as signals of different narrative units or displaced pericopes.	Low (1–2/10) — This passage argues against Ammonian-style unit thinking. Origen presupposes a stable Matthean scene and reads synoptic material as a single semantic field. There is no boundary anxiety, no stitching of units, and no use of parallels to control sequence. Variation is theological, not structural. 15.9 thus aligns with didactic harmonization (like 15.6), not with Ammonian pericope segmentation.