Origen's Use of Ammonius in His Commentary on John [Part One]

Work	Passage	Greek textual indicators of Ammonian-style pericope use	Strength as witness for Ammonius pericope use
Origen, Commentary on John	1.4.22–24	Origen explicitly correlates incipits and termini across the four Gospels using structural language: Matthew’s βίβλος γενέσεως, Mark’s ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, and John’s ἐν ἀρχῇ are treated as intentional boundary markers defining different starting points within a shared gospel economy. He contrasts beginnings, middles, and ends, and aligns evangelists by their assigned narrative roles, presupposing that each Gospel has recognizable, stable opening units that can be compared and mapped. This reflects a mindset that treats openings as indexable pericopal blocks, not merely theological themes.	Moderate–Strong (7/10) — clear evidence of incipit-based unit consciousness and cross-gospel alignment, though operating at a macro-structural level rather than explicit serial pericope numbering.
Origen, Commentary on John	1.12.78–1.13.82	Origen treats “Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου” as a technical boundary marker and reasons from Mark’s incipit as a fixed textual starting unit. He distinguishes ἀρχή / μέσον / τέλος of the gospel and anchors the discussion in the composite prophetic citation (Isaiah + Malachi) as a deliberately constructed opening block. The argument presupposes that Mark 1:1–3 is a stable, identifiable pericope whose limits are known and comparable.	Moderate (6/10) — strong evidence for unitized openings and incipit anchoring, but focused on the macro-ἀρχή of the gospel rather than explicit pericope sequencing across narratives.