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

Work	Passage	Greek textual indicators of Ammonian-style pericope / unit use	Strength as witness for Ammonius-style unit thinking
Origen, Commentary on Matthew	11.5–11.7 (Matt 14:22–36; esp. 14:22 “εὐθέως ἠνάγκασεν…”, walking on sea + Gennesaret)	Origen treats the narrative as a single articulated unit whose internal “joints” are repeatedly re-indexed by the same incipit-skeleton: «εὐθέως ἠνάγκασεν… ἐμβῆναι εἰς τὸ πλοῖον… εἰς τὸ πέραν». He explicitly flags the unit-logic as sequential (“εὐθέως μετὰ τὸ τραφῆναι…”) and reads the pericope as a graduated crossing (crowds below → disciples in the boat → “μέσον τῆς θαλάσσης” → “τετάρτη φυλακή” → Jesus aboard → “διαπεράσαντες ἦλθον”). The Mark citation is introduced as a parallel-column micro-variant rather than a mere prooftext: «ὀλίγον ἐναλλάξας τὴν λέξιν ἀνέγραψε καὶ ὁ Μᾶρκος…» and he isolates Mark’s μικρὰ παραλλαγή with explicit comparative language (“ὀλίγη παραλλαγή”, “τι πλεῖον ἐμφαίνοντος”, “διὰ τῆς τοῦ ἄρθρου προσθήκης”). He exploits Mark’s wording differences in a canon-table way: Mark’s «τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ» vs Matthew’s bare «τοὺς μαθητάς» becomes exegetically meaningful; Mark’s added destination («εἰς Βηθσαϊδά») is treated as part of the comparative dossier. There is no claim of a different Matthean recension here (no “τινὰ τῶν ἀντιγράφων” for Matthew), but there is overt synoptic apparatus behavior: compare, name the variation, and interpret the “extra” as semantically weighty.	High (for unit-thinking), Medium-High (for synoptic-table use) — this is one of Origen’s clearest displays of pericope-engine reading: he works at the level of an indexed narrative block, tracks internal seams (“μετὰ τὸ τραφῆναι…”, “μέσον…”, “τετάρτη φυλακή”, “ἀναβάντος… ἐκόπασεν…”, “διαπεράσαντες…”), and then handles Mark not as ornament but as a controlled parallel witness with analysable micro-variation (“ὀλίγη παραλλαγή”). It lacks the decisive “Ammonius shows me a different Matthew reading than my own recension” feature found in 12.15, but it still looks strongly like columnar consultation of parallels at a pericope boundary.