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

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.