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

Work	Passage	Greek textual indicators of Ammonian-style pericope / unit use	Strength as witness for Ammonius-style unit thinking
Origen, Commentary on Matthew	16.9	(1) “Catenary” stitching across corpora, with explicit anchors: Origen explicitly ties the cup-theme not only to the immediately preceding discussion, but also to a delimited Psalm block introduced as a named locus: τῷ ἐν ἑκατοστῷ πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ Ψαλμῷ εἰρημένῳ … and then he strings multiple incipits from that same Psalm (τί ἀνταποδώσω… ποτήριον σωτηρίου λήψομαι… τὰς εὐχάς μου… τίμιος ἐναντίον κυρίου…), treating them as a single bounded textual unit rather than free-floating prooftexts. (2) Unit-internal inference from a quoted run: he argues “clearly he taught” (σαφῶς δὲ ἐδίδαξεν) that “the cup is martyrdom” precisely by the way the Psalmic sequence is brought in, especially the attachment of τίμιος… to the ποτήριον theme; that is, he is reading the sequence as a structured block that yields an interpretation. (3) Binary decomposition of a dominical complex into two indexed items: τῇ δὲ ἐπινοίᾳ τὸ μαρτύριον δύο ἐστίν, ὧν τὸ μὲν ἓν… «ποτήριον σωτηρίου», τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν βάπτισμα. This is a “two-part mapping” move: one conceptual dossier, split into two correlated members, which can then be tracked across gospel loci. (4) Explicit cross-gospel caution that presupposes parallel forms rather than one controlling text: μὴ σαινέτω δὲ ἡμᾶς εἰ ὁ σωτὴρ παρὰ τῷ Μάρκῳ καὶ τὸ ποτήριον πίνει, καὶ τὸ βάπτισμα βαπτίζεται. Mark is treated as a legitimate witness with its own phrasing that must be interpreted, not subordinated. (5) Narrative-to-textual “return” that looks like pericope resumption: after long thematic development (Psalm → martyrdom → confession-saying → Markan phrasing → baptism theology → apostolic fates), Origen lands on a Johannine self-testimony from Revelation (ἐγὼ Ἰωάννης… ἐγενόμην ἐν τῇ νήσῳ… διὰ τὸν λόγον…), again introduced as a recognizable textual locus, functioning like another bounded block appended to the same dossier.	Moderate (6/10) for Ammonian unit-thinking in the strict sense, but strong (8/10) for the broader synoptic-topological habit that an Ammonian system formalizes. What you get here is not “align Matthew/Mark/Luke pericope X by incipit/terminus” (as in 16.8), but a very clear practice of working with bounded blocks (a Psalm run; a dominical saying; Mark’s phrasing; a Revelation self-report) as modular units that can be mapped onto one another inside a single “cup/baptism” dossier.