| Work | Passage | Greek textual indicators of Ammonian-style pericope / unit use | Strength as witness for Ammonius-style unit thinking |
|---|---|---|---|
| Origen, Commentary on Matthew | 12.40 (Transfiguration scene; Peter’s “three tents” + “not knowing what he said/answered”; Matt 17:4–6 context with Mark 9:5–6; Luke 9:33) | The passage opens with a unit-transition framing and lemma-style launch: Ἴδωμεν οὖν μετὰ ταῦτα … followed by a Matthean snippet and καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. That looks like Origen is treating the ensuing stretch as a discrete expositional block. But the decisive “synoptic apparatus” signal is his explicit justification for inquiry grounded in Mark–Luke divergence: διὰ τοῦτο… ζητητέον, ἐπεὶ ὁ μὲν Μᾶρκος… τὸ “οὐ γὰρ ᾔδει τί ἀπεκρίθη”, ὁ δὲ Λουκᾶς “μὴ εἰδὼς… ὃ λέγει”. He is not simply noting that Mark has “the equivalent”; he is collating two formulations, contrasting narrative voice (Mark: ὡς ἐκ τοῦ ἰδίου προσώπου) with Luke’s descriptive phrasing, and treating that contrast as an exegetical trigger. The whole interpretive engine turns on explaining how both synoptic framings can be true (ἔκστασις? πνεῦμα κινῶν? even hostile agency), which presupposes that Mark and Luke are being consulted as parallel witnesses to the same pericope-unit. Notably, Matthew is backgrounded at the key point: the problem is generated by Mark/Luke wording and narrator stance, not by a Matthean seam. | High (8/10). This is closer to 12.15 than 14.16 is, because the synoptic comparison is not disposable; it creates the interpretive problem. Still, it is not “12.15 in miniature”: the issue is not a boundary marker or a table-driven supplementum, but a micro-variant + narrative-voice divergence across parallels inside an already-stable scene. It strongly supports “Ammonius-style unit thinking” in the sense of reading pericopes as alignable blocks whose parallel wording can be set side-by-side and made to bear interpretation; it does not, by itself, display explicit table mechanics (no canon/unit numerals). |
Thursday, January 22, 2026
Origen's Use of Ammonius in Commentary on Matthew [Part Thirteen]
Email stephan.h.huller@gmail.com with comments or questions.