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

Work	Passage	Greek textual indicators of synoptic control + textual-criticism	Strength as witness for non-Matthean “lead” logic
Origen, Commentary on Matthew	15.14 (Rich man pericope: Matt 19:16–22 // Mark 10:17–22 // Luke 18:18–23)	Origen spots an internal-exegetical snag in Matthew if the command “ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς ἑαυτόν” is present in Jesus’ list, because Jesus then says “ἕν σοι ὑστερεῖ / ἔτι ἕν σοι λείπει”. He proposes a specifically textual solution: “μήποτε … οὐχ ὑπὸ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἐνταῦθα παρειλῆφθαι, ἀλλ’ ὑπό τινος … προστεθεῖσθαι” (i.e., a secondary addition by someone not grasping the ἀκρίβεια). He then explicitly uses the synoptic triangle as an external control: “συναγορεύσει … ἡ τῶν ὁμοίων παρὰ τῷ Μάρκῳ καὶ τῷ Λουκᾷ ἔκθεσις, ὧν οὐδέτερος προστέθεικε …” (Mark+Luke lack the clause in the parallel episode). Next he generalizes into a programmatic statement about gospel manuscript transmission: “πολλὴ γέγονεν ἡ τῶν ἀντιγράφων διαφορά”, with a causal taxonomy: “εἴτε ἀπὸ ῥᾳθυμίας… εἴτε ἀπὸ τόλμης… εἴτε … προστιθέντων ἢ ἀφαιρούντων”. Finally he imports his editorial practice from OT textual work (Hexaplaric technique) as an analogy: he mentions deciding readings by the λοιπαὶ ἐκδόσεις, and the critical signs ὠβελίσαμεν (obelus) and μετ’ ἀστερίσκων προσεθήκαμεν (asterisks).	Decisive (10/10) — Origen treats Matthew as a witness that can be corrected/suspected on the basis of Mark+Luke and manuscript-variation theory. That is structurally incompatible with a simple “Matthew leads → others follow” control-model.

Work	Passage	Greek textual indicators of Ammonian-style pericope / unit use	Strength as witness for Ammonius-style unit thinking
Origen, Commentary on Matthew	15.14 (Rich man pericope; “ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον…”; textual criticism)	Not framed by unit-boundary formulas. There is no Ammonian-style “incipit → explicit” handling (no “καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως τοῦ …” functioning as a unit delimiter here). Instead the operative markers are text-critical and synoptic-control language: “μήποτε … προστεθεῖσθαι” (candidate interpolation), “ἀκρίβειαν μὴ νοήσαντος” (scribe misunderstanding), appeal to synoptic agreement/absence as external control (“ἡ … παρὰ τῷ Μάρκῳ καὶ τῷ Λουκᾷ ἔκθεσις… ὧν οὐδέτερος προστέθεικε”), and a generalized theory of manuscript variation “πολλὴ γέγονεν ἡ τῶν ἀντιγράφων διαφορά” with causal taxonomy (ῥᾳθυμία γραφέων / τόλμη μοχθηρά / προστιθέντων ἢ ἀφαιρούντων). He then models procedure on Hexaplaric practice via critical signs (ὠβελίσαμεν, μετ’ ἀστερίσκων προσεθήκαμεν). This is adjudication of readings across witnesses, not indexing of pericope units. (As a side-effect, it also undermines “Matthew leads” logic, since Mark+Luke function as controls against a Matthean reading.)	Low (2–3/10) — the passage is powerful evidence for Origen’s synoptic triangulation and textual-critic posture, but it is weak evidence for Ammonian pericope/unit mechanics specifically, because the Greek cues are about variants in ἀντίγραφα and interpolation, not about unit boundaries or table-like segmentation.