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

Work	Passage	Greek textual indicators of Ammonian-style pericope use	Strength as witness for Ammonius pericope use (redo)
Origen, Commentary on Matthew	17.34 (Sadducees; seven brothers; “neither marry nor are given”; synoptic comparison Luke vs Matthew/Mark; tropology claim)	This is explicit synoptic-table reasoning on a delimited unit. (1) Pericope delimitation by focus-shift: “οὐδεμιᾶς τροπολογίας δεῖται τὸ πύσμα… φέρε κατανοήσωμεν τοὺς τοῦ σωτῆρος… λόγους” = the question-block needs no tropology; the interpretive unit is Jesus’ answer-block. (2) Direct three-Gospel partitioning: “κατὰ μὲν τὸν Λουκᾶν… κατὰ δὲ τὸν Ματθαῖον… ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ κατὰ τὸν Μᾶρκον” — Origen is literally sorting witnesses into parallel columns. (3) Incipit + continuation marker as navigation: citing Luke with an opening handle (“οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου…”) then “καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς” presupposes a stable, findable block beyond the quoted incipit. (4) Variant-driven problem formation: he observes that in Luke the “appeal to the Scriptures” issue “οὐ ζητηθήσεται,” whereas in Matthew/Mark it “ζητηθείη ἄν,” because the rebuke “πλανᾶσθε μὴ γινώσκοντες τὰς γραφὰς…” makes the claim sound scripturally grounded. (5) Resolution by hermeneutical rule explicitly keyed to the unit: “περιέχουσι ταῦτα αἱ γραφαὶ οὐκ αὐτολεξεὶ… ἀλλ’ ἐν τροπολογίᾳ,” then returns to the same warning line (“πλανᾶται μὴ εἰδὼς τὰς γραφὰς…”) — i.e., the synoptic comparison generates the interpretive principle.	Very strong (8/10) — the clearest kind of evidence short of numerals: Origen compares the same pericope across Luke/Matthew/Mark, uses incipit-navigation (“καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς”), and derives the exegetical problem from precisely the divergence one notices when working with aligned pericope units.
Origen, Commentary on Matthew	17.36 (Sadducees; scope of “πλανᾶσθε…”; “as angels”; Exod 3:6; tri-synoptic wording; Luke’s “πάντες γὰρ αὐτῷ ζῶσιν”)	The paragraph is built out of unit-scoping + synoptic-alignment moves that match “table-reader” habits. (1) Scope-testing of clause boundaries: “Μετὰ ταῦτα ζητῶ πότερον…” asking whether “πλανᾶσθε…” governs only “ἐν γὰρ τῇ ἀναστάσει…” or also “ἀλλ’ εἰσὶν ὡς οἱ ἄγγελοι…”. (2) Explicit next-unit hinge: “ἑξῆς τούτῳ ἔστιν ἰδεῖν…” marking movement to the next block (“οὐκ ἀνέγνωτε… ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ θεὸς Ἀβραὰμ…”). (3) Verbatim attention as locating method: “ἑαυτῷ δὲ τὴν λέξιν τηρήσας εὑρήσεις.” (4) Tri-synoptic alignment asserted: “ἀνέγραψαν Ματθαῖος καὶ Μᾶρκος καὶ Λουκᾶς.” (5) Single-evangelist supplementation flagged: “ὁ δὲ Λουκᾶς προσέθηκε… τὸ ‘πάντες γὰρ αὐτῷ ζῶσιν’.”	Very strong (8.5/10) — internal scope-boundary analysis + explicit pericope-to-pericope navigation + controlled tri-synoptic wording with a marked Lucan increment.