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

Work	Passage	Greek textual indicators of Ammonian-style pericope / unit use	Strength as witness for Ammonius-style unit thinking
Origen, Commentary on Matthew	12.37 (Transfiguration: “μετεμορφώθη ἔμπροσθεν αὐτῶν”)	The synoptic move is micro-syntactic and explicitly double-witnessed: Origen flags that the clause is not bare μετεμορφώθη, but has an “necessary addition” (μετὰ δέ τινος ἀναγκαίας προσθήκης) “which Matthew and Mark wrote” (ἣν ἀνέγραψε Ματθαῖος καὶ Μᾶρκος), namely μετεμορφώθη ἔμπροσθεν αὐτῶν (κατὰ γὰρ ἀμφοτέρους…). This is a deliberate two-Gospel phrasing alignment used to generate an exegetical inference (transfigured “before some” but not “before others”). There’s no range-marking (“καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως”), no appeal to order, and no variant apparatus; the “unit” is essentially a single shared clause treated as a hinge for spiritual interpretation.	Moderate (5/10). It supports synoptic co-reading and sensitivity to exact phrasing (a prerequisite for Ammonian-style unit-thinking), but it does not behave like table-driven navigation or boundary control. Mark here is a corroborating co-witness, not an operative parallel that forces re-segmentation or solves a synoptic problem the way 12.15 does.
Origen, Commentary on Matthew	12.39 (Transfiguration: Mark’s “in praying” + “fuller” clothing description; Luke’s “ἐξαστράπτων”)	Origen explicitly shifts exegetical control to Mark because more exposition is “required”: Εἶτ’, ἐπεὶ κατὰ τὸν Μᾶρκον δεήσει διηγήσασθαι … and then he quotes a distinctly Markan/Lukan complex (καὶ ἐν τῷ προσεύχεσθαι…; then Mark’s λευκὰ καὶ στίλβοντα… οἷα γναφεὺς…, and he triangulates with Luke: κατὰ τὸν Λουκᾶν… λευκὸς… καὶ ἐξαστράπτων). This is not merely “Mark also has the equivalent.” It is explicit synoptic supplementation inside a Matthean lemma: Matthew provides the base scene, but Mark supplies necessary descriptive/setting material, and Luke provides an alternative descriptor that Origen coordinates with Mark. That is a very “apparatus-friendly” posture: the pericope is treated as a single aligned complex whose components can be swapped in for exposition. Still, there is no overt boundary-labelling or unit numbering.	High (7/10). Stronger than 12.37 because Mark is not just corroborating; he is necessary (“δεήσει διηγήσασθαι”) and is mined for material Matthew lacks, then coordinated with Luke. It still falls short of 12.15’s distinctive signature (variant-awareness / cross-Gospel disambiguation at a control point), but it strongly evidences synoptic-unit thinking compatible with Ammonian practice.