Origen's Use of Ammonius in Commentary on John [Part Three]

Work	Passage	Greek textual indicators of Ammonian-style pericope use	Strength as witness for Ammonius pericope use	Rank (1–10)
Origen, Commentarium in Ioannem	6.50.261–6.52.268 (Baptism of Jesus; synoptic differentiation; “Lamb of God” expansion)	Origen explicitly distributes distinct narrative components of the baptismal pericope across the gospels: Mark supplies geographical origin (“ἀπὸ Ναζαρὲτ τῆς Γαλιλαίας”), Luke adds the prayer and descent of the Spirit, Matthew alone preserves John’s resistance and Jesus’ reply (“Ἄφες ἄρτι…”). The principle is stated explicitly: Luke omits what others have said to avoid repetition (“ἵνα μὴ ταὐτολογῶσιν”). This presupposes a shared pericope core with selective supplementation, a classic Ammonian logic. The later Johannine material (“Ἴδε ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ”) is then treated as a theologically distinct but narratively adjacent unit, not a chronological contradiction, showing Origen’s sensitivity to pericope boundaries before allegorical expansion.	Very strong evidence for pericope partitioning and gospel-specific contribution theory, articulated explicitly.	9/10
Origen, Commentarium in Ioannem	10.3.13–15 (Chronology of Capernaum: Matthew/Mark vs John; fourfold gospel theory)	Origen frames the problem explicitly as a pericope-order question (“πότε γέγονε πρῶτον ἐν τῇ Καφαρναοὺμ”), then tests Matthew–Mark sequence against Johannine sequencing. His solution invokes four coordinated but non-identical narrative tracks, presupposing stable pericope units that can be aligned without collapsing chronology.	Extremely strong theoretical justification for pericope alignment.	9/10
Origen, Commentarium in Ioannem	10.11.51–58 (Capernaum cycle: preaching → synagogue exorcism → healings)	Origen deliberately assembles a Capernaum pericope cluster across Mark and Luke, aligning “τὰ παραπλήσια τῷ Μάρκῳ” and closing the unit as a completed block (“Ταῦτα δὲ πάντα…”).	Strong evidence of multi-pericope block handling.	8/10
Origen, Commentarium in Ioannem	10.21.125–126 (Entry into Jerusalem: Matthew → Mark → fig tree → cleansing)	Origen marks successive pericope transitions with procedural language (“Ἑξῆς… Δεύτερα… Εἶτα”), moving stepwise through gospel-specific narrative units without conflation.	Very strong evidence of running pericope indexing.	9/10