Origen's Use of Ammonius's Apparatus Outside of the Gospel Commentaries

Work	Passage	Greek textual indicators of Ammonian-style pericope use	Strength as witness for Ammonius pericope use	Rank (1–10)
Origen, Homiliae in Lucam	1.3–1.7 (opening homily)	Canonical discrimination and macro-framing of Luke as writing περὶ τῶν πεπληροφορημένων πραγμάτων; presupposes fixed gospel wholes but no internal sequencing.	Conceptual groundwork only; not pericope navigation.	5/10
Origen, Contra Celsum	5.56–5.57 (tomb / angels)	Evangelists mapped to distinct configurations within a single resurrection pericope (Matthew–Mark: one angel; Luke–John: two). Differences resolved inside a bounded unit explicitly assigned to εὐαγγελίου ἐξηγητικά.	Clear comparative-pericope reasoning presupposing indexed narrative units.	7/10
Origen, Contra Celsum	2.4–2.5 (Markan incipit)	“Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου” treated as a formal incipit-unit, grounding the gospel’s beginning in the Law and Prophets and reasoning from a recognized narrative start-point.	Moderate evidence for incipit-based unit logic.	6/10
Origen, Contra Celsum	(apostle-call narratives; Matt–Mark variants)	Distinct call-pericopes are separated and compared (fishermen vs. tax-collector). Origen explicitly notes variant inclusion of Levi κατὰ τινα τῶν ἀντιγράφων τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον, showing pericope-aware comparison plus manuscript sensitivity.	Strong evidence of pericope-level control across gospels.	7/10
Origen, Contra Celsum	Prologue P.1–P.3 (trial / silence of Jesus)	Origen anchors his apology in a single trial-pericope (“ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἐσιώπα / οὐδὲν ἀπεκρίνατο”), explicitly stating: “ἀρκεῖ… τὰ Ματθαίου παραθέσθαι· τὰ γὰρ ἰσοδυναμοῦντα αὐτῷ ὁ Μᾶρκος ἔγραψεν.” Matthew is cited as the base text; Mark is treated as pericope-equivalent, not independently quoted. This is classic Ammonian logic: one unit, multiple gospel witnesses, one selected for citation.	Strong evidence of pericope equivalence reasoning, though not full running traversal.	7/10
Origen, Homiliae in Lucam	29.169–30.173 (temptation homilies)	Sequential traversal of temptation pericopes with clear boundaries and incipits; explicit John vs. synoptics comparison presupposes an indexed “temptation” unit.	Strong behavioral evidence of a running pericope index.	8/10