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

Work	Passage	Greek textual indicators of Ammonian-style pericope / unit use	Strength as witness for Ammonius-style unit thinking
Origen, Commentary on Matthew	17.32 (Deut 25 levirate law lemma; “λύσαι/ὑπολῦσαι” + tri-gospel collation; chained intertexts)	(1) Lemma-driven segmentation (not a Gospel pericope, but the same “unit-handling” reflex): he takes a Pentateuchal incipit (“ἐὰν… μὴ βούληται… λαβεῖν…”) and proceeds clause-by-clause, tracking internal label-shifts (“οὐκ… ‘ἄνθρωπος’… ἀλλὰ ‘ἀδελφός’ … / τότε… ‘ἄνθρωπος’”). (2) Explicit tri-gospel collation of a fixed phrase-unit: he cites the Baptist formula about loosening the sandal strap as “γεγραμμένον ἐν τῷ κατὰ Λουκᾶν… κατὰ Μᾶρκον… κατὰ Ἰωάννην” and uses it as a cross-witness control-text. (3) Variant-sensitive lexical discrimination grounded in that collation: the point is not mere quotation but whether “τὸ λῦσαι τὸ ὑπόδημα” is the same as “τὸ ὑπολῦσαι”—i.e., a micro-parallel comparison that presupposes stable, retrievable wording across Gospel witnesses. (4) Unit-logic transferred into “chain of blocks” (intertextual stitching): Deut lemma → Psalms (“θεοί ἐστε… / ὡς ἄνθρωποι ἀποθνῄσκετε”) → Moses/Joshua sandal-removal → Baptist saying in Luke/Mark/John → then later Romans with a boundary gesture (“καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως…”). This is not pericope-boundary work in Matthew, but it’s unmistakably block-navigation.	Moderate (6/10) — not Ammonian pericope-bracketing in Matthew, but it is unmistakably Ammonian-adjacent unit thinking: Origen treats a Gospel phrase as a fixed, cross-indexable block across three gospels and reasons from lexical differences inside that block.
Origen, Commentary on Matthew	17.34 (Sadducees; resurrection-marriage saying; Luke vs Matthew/Mark; “scriptures” problem; tropology solution)	(1) Explicit pericope delimitation (question-block vs answer-block): “οὐδεμιᾶς τροπολογίας δεῖται τὸ πύσμα… φέρε κατανοήσωμεν τοὺς… λόγους” selects the unit for exegesis. (2) Overt synoptic alignment language (column-thinking): “κατὰ μὲν τὸν Λουκᾶν… κατὰ δὲ τὸν Ματθαῖον… ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ κατὰ τὸν Μᾶρκον.” (3) Incipit + continuation marker as navigational handle: Luke is cited by opening phrase and “καὶ <τὰ> ἑξῆς,” presupposing a bounded, recoverable block. (4) Variant-driven problem formation: the “scriptures” claim creates a question that only exists because Luke’s parallel lacks that prompt at this point. (5) Resolution keyed to the synoptic discrepancy: “οὐκ αὐτολεξεὶ… ἀλλ’ ἐν τροπολογίᾳ,” then the warning line is reapplied at the end.	Very strong (8/10) — classic operational signature: bounded episode, witnesses aligned by evangelist, incipit-navigation, and interpretation driven by inter-Gospel variation inside one shared pericope.