Origen's Use of Ammonius in his Commentary on Matthew [Part Thirty Eight]

Work	Passage	Greek textual indicators of Ammonian-style pericope use	Strength as witness for Ammonius pericope use (redo)
Origen, Commentary on Matthew	(Your new excerpt: virgins/oil; “outer darkness”; sheep/goats; Bethany anointing harmonization; temple-saying “λύσατε… ναὸν τοῦτον”; Peter-denial notes; Judas remorse; etc.)	Multiple unit-navigation and parallel-alignment signals that look like “table-reader” habits: (1) explicit shorthand for advancing within a known block, especially καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς (used as “continue from this anchor,” i.e., pericope continuity); (2) synoptic clustering by agreement-sets (the Bethany/anointing analysis): “Ματθαῖος καὶ Μᾶρκος … ἑτέραν … ὁ Λουκᾶς … περὶ ἧς ὁ Ἰωάννης,” with discriminators (Bethany + Simon the leper vs John’s “πρὸ ἓξ ἡμερῶν τοῦ πάσχα … ὅπου ἦν Λάζαρος”) functioning like pericope-identifying handles; (3) micro-lemma policing inside a reported saying, treating exact wording as decisive (“οὐ γὰρ εἶπεν … ὅτι λύω … ἀλλὰ ‘λύσατε’ … οὐ … ‘ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ’ ἀλλὰ ‘ναὸν τοῦτον’”), which is the same granular discipline needed to keep pericope-lemmas stable across witnesses; (4) frequent internal “query prompts” (ὅρα / τήρει / τάχα / εἰ δὲ …) stepping through sub-scenes as if moving along a segmented narrative track.	Strong (7/10) — strong evidence for pericope-unit thinking and synoptic indexing, especially via clustering (Mt+Mk vs Lk vs Jn) and stable anchor-phrases; less direct than explicit Ammonian-number citation, but very consistent with an Ammonian-style comparative reading practice.
Origen, Commentary on Matthew	(Your earlier excerpt on Mt 27 material: Judas/coins; Pilate “σὺ λέγεις”; Barabbas variant; handwashing; Simon carrying cross; wine+gall vs myrrhed wine; two criminals; darkness; “Φλέγων”; sixth hour, etc.)	This excerpt is diagnostic for “table-reader” habits, but the strongest signal is textual-control rather than numbering: (1) explicit manuscript/antigraphon comparison: “παλαιοῖς δὲ πάνυ ἀντιγράφοις ἐντυχὼν εὗρον…” introducing “Ἰησοῦν τὸν Βαραββᾶν,” implying a stable lemma-unit with transmissional variants; (2) synoptic triangulation (“κατὰ μὲν τοὺς τρεῖς … κατὰ δὲ Ἰωάννην …”; “Ματθαῖος… Μᾶρκος… Λουκᾶς…”) matching the grouping logic the apparatus presupposes; (3) incipit-like anchoring on core questions/sayings (“σὺ εἶ ὁ βασιλεὺς…;” / “σὺ λέγεις”), then marching scene-by-scene; (4) dense navigation prompts (ζητήσεις / ὅρα / εἰ δὲ / τάχα) that behave like stepping cues through successive sub-episodes.	Strong (8/10) — very strong evidence for pericope-unit reading + synoptic grouping + manuscript-variant attention; not proof of Ammonian numerals, but highly compatible with Ammonian/Eusebian pericope practice.