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

Work	Passage	Greek textual indicators of Ammonian-style pericope / unit use	Strength as witness for Ammonius-style unit thinking
Origen, Commentary on Matthew	16.7–16.8	(1) Explicit unit-boundary talk: Origen introduces a new move as an addition “after the given narration” (ὁ δὲ προστιθεὶς μετὰ τὴν ἀποδεδομένην διήγησιν), i.e., he is conscious of a completed narrative block and then a “supplement”/appendix move. He marks spans with the formula καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς (twice) and, in 16.8, with καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως τοῦ…, the classic “incipit + run + terminus” bounding technique. (2) Cross-Gospel equivalence language: “Mark wrote the equivalent things” (τούτοις τὰ ἰσοδυναμοῦντα καὶ ὁ Μᾶρκος ἀνέγραψεν) — not “copied,” but “recorded the matching unit-content.” (3) Order-as-a measurable property of bounded runs: Origen says they keep “the order of what is recorded” (ἐτηρήσαμεν… τὴν τάξιν τῶν ἀναγεγραμμένων τηροῦντας Ματθαῖον καὶ Μᾶρκον), and then he defines the parallel run by incipit→terminus in each Gospel: Matthew from «μέλλων δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀναβαίνειν εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα…» to «εὐθέως δὲ ἀποστέλλει αὐτούς», Mark from «ἦσαν δὲ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ ἀναβαίνοντες εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα…» to «εὐθέως αὐτὸν ἀποστέλλει…». (4) Method instruction that presupposes synopsis-by-units: “set the Gospels alongside each other by these places and compare” (σὺ δὲ παραθεὶς τὰ εὐαγγέλια ἀλλήλοις κατὰ τοὺς τόπους τούτους καὶ συγκρίνων…). (5) Partial overlap handled as unit-mapping, not dependence: Luke has “in part” the similar material, but with a different prefacing scene (ὁ Λουκᾶς… ἐκ μέρους τὸ ὅμοιον ἀνέγραψε προτάξας…).	Very strong (9/10) — this is one of Origen’s clearest “synoptic control” statements: equivalence (ἰσοδυναμία), order (τάξις), bounded runs (incipit→terminus), and an explicit instruction to align the Gospels “by places” (τόποι). It reads like the practice a section/canon system is designed to formalize.