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

Work	Passage	Greek textual indicators of Ammonian-style pericope / unit use	Strength as witness for Ammonius-style unit thinking
Origen, Commentary on Matthew	6.13	Origen explicitly selects one gospel’s version as a bounded unit, quotes Luke with an incipit + explicit range marker: «Ἴδωμεν δὲ καὶ τὸ τοῦ Λουκᾶ οὕτως ἔχον…» … «καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως τοῦ…», treating the Lucan episode as a segment with endpoints. He then announces a deliberate procedure: he will not repeat the “common” material but will present the “key and distinctive” (τὰ μὲν κοινὰ… οὐκ ἐπαναληψόμεθα, τὰ δὲ καίρια καὶ ἴδια… παραστήσομεν), which presupposes that the three accounts have already been collated per pericope. He performs a tight three-way synoptic alignment on a single narrative locus (Jericho blind-man episode) using movement-phrases as parallel markers: Luke «ἐν τῷ ἐγγίζειν… εἰς Ἱεριχώ», Mark «καὶ ἔρχεται εἰς Ἱεριχώ… καὶ ἐκπορευομένου… ἐκεῖθεν», Matthew «ἐκπορευομένων… ἀπὸ Ἱεριχώ». He then converts these into an ordered triad (approach → enter → depart: «πρῶτον… ἐγγίσαι… εἶτα εἰσελθεῖν… μετὰ ταῦτα… ἐκπορευθῆναι»), showing he is tracking sequence across gospels at the unit level rather than reading one gospel continuously. Finally, he continues the same pericope-level comparison by lining up micro-variants inside the unit (who/what the blind man hears; “Jesus the Nazarene”; one vs two blind men; touch vs no touch; doxology ending), again treating each gospel as a parallel column within the same episode.	Very strong (9/10) — Origen’s incipit/explicit “ἕως” bounding, explicit “common vs distinctive” collation method, and three-way movement/sequence alignment are textbook symptoms of pericope-indexed synoptic work (i.e., something functionally Ammonian).