Clement's method in the to Theodore section that deals with the relative placement of the passages from "mystic Mark" is to (a) anchor on a fixed incipit (“Ἀμέλει μετὰ τὸ ἦσαν δὲ…”) as a unit label; (b) signal a bounded stretch with καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως; (c) announce verbatim carry-over (Ὧδε ἐπιφέρει κατὰ λέξιν); (d) stitch the cited unit into a sequence of adjacent units using boundary formulas (Ἐπὶ μὲν τούτοις ἕπεται…, Μετὰ δὲ τὸ… ἐπάγει… μόνον); (e) treat the unit as something you can look up, not just paraphrase, and police what “is / isn’t found” (οὐκ εὑρίσκεται).
| Passage | Score (1–10) | Apparatus-like signals present (linguistic/method) | What keeps it from scoring higher |
|---|---|---|---|
| 16.3 | 9 | Explicitly introduces a bounded citation block as an object: “λέξιν οὕτως ἔχουσαν … καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως τοῦ …”; then uses ἐπὶ τούτοις to mark immediate sequential adjacency (“ἐπὶ τούτοις γὰρ εἴρηται … καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς”). This is extremely close to (1)’s unit labeling + boundary shorthand + “after this comes…” linkage. | Lacks an explicit κατὰ λέξιν flag and lacks a strong synoptic comparison step in the excerpt itself (it becomes theological-historical exposition). |
| 15.37 | 2 | Almost no pericope-bounding mechanics; it’s continuous allegorical exposition on the parable (ἄμπελος = ἐκκλησία, etc.). The only “method” is paraenetic and rhetorical. | No ἑξῆς/ἕως, no incipit anchoring, no cross-gospel comparison, no sequencing-by-boundaries. It’s the opposite of apparatus shorthand. |
| Origen | Score (1–10) for resemblance to to Theodore's apparatus-method | Key apparatus-like linguistic signals (quoted) | Why not higher |
|---|---|---|---|
| 16.18 | 10 | Full-on bounded blocks + explicit synoptic collation in (1)’s exact register: “τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως … (ματτη. 21, 6–11)”; then “ὁ δὲ Μᾶρκος… καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως …”; then “καὶ ὁ Λουκᾶς… καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως …”. This is pericope-range shorthand applied consecutively across gospels, i.e., apparatus behavior, not merely commentary. | It lacks an explicit “κατὰ λέξιν” flag, but functionally it’s doing the same compression-by-range work. |
| 16.16 | 7 | Strong synoptic triangulation with iterative quotation formulas: “κατὰ τὸν Ματθαῖον … ἢ … κατὰ τὸν Μᾶρκον …”; then “ἤ …”; then “καὶ κατὰ τὸν Λουκᾶν δέ …”. Also explicit “sequence/nextness” vocabulary: “ὁ λόγος τῶν ἑξῆς ἀκόλουθος…”. This is apparatus-adjacent (tracking parallel forms + order). | It mostly collates phrases/variants rather than delimiting whole units with “ἑξῆς ἕως” blocks. It’s more “synoptic comparison” than “pericope apparatus.” |
| 16.17 | 5 | Explicit cross-gospel mapping (toponym differences): “Βηθφαγὴ μὲν κατὰ Ματθαῖον, Βηθανίας δὲ κατὰ τὸν Μᾶρκον, … κατὰ τὸν Λουκᾶν.” That’s comparison-by-gospel labels, which is part of the same methodological world. | No bounded-range shorthand; no incipit-as-unit label; it moves quickly into etymology/allegory, so the apparatus signal is intermittent. |
| Origen passage | Score (1–10) for resemblance to to Theodore's apparatus-method | Key apparatus-like linguistic signals (quoted) | Why not higher |
|---|---|---|---|
| 16.4 (Matthew lemma as bounded unit) | 9 | «Τότε προσῆλθεν αὐτῷ ἡ μήτηρ τῶν υἱῶν Ζεβεδαίου…»; «καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως τοῦ ἀκούσαντες δὲ οἱ δέκα ἠγανάκτησαν…» | No explicit “diagnostic/polemical” frame like to Theodore («τὰ κατεψευσμένα ἐλέγχων»), and no “κατὰ λέξιν” tag attached to the lemma itself. |
| 16.4 (Mark lemma explicitly paired) | 10 | «τὸ δ’ ὅμοιον αὐτῷ καὶ ὁ Μᾶρκος ἀνέγραψε τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον»; «καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως τοῦ “ἤρξαντο ἀγανακτεῖν…”» | The mechanism matches perfectly (incipit + “next bits” + ἕως-terminus), but it still lacks to Theodore’s “κατὰ λέξιν” / “Ὧδε ἐπιφέρει” self-conscious citation rhetoric. |
| 16.4 (apparatus-style equivalence marker) | 9 | «τὸ δ’ ὅμοιον αὐτῷ…» | to Theodore is more explicitly “apparatus-like” because it cues a sequence of aligned material (“μετὰ τὸ… καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως …”), whereas «τὸ ὅμοιον» is a looser equivalence label (even though it functions similarly here). |
| 16.4 (hard boundary construction: incipit → terminus) | 10 | «καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως τοῦ…» (twice, for Mt and Mk) | Not higher only in the sense that to Theodore adds “meta-citation” guidance to the reader (“Ὧδε ἐπιφέρει κατὰ λέξιν”), making the apparatus function more overt. |
| 16.4 (explicit authorial citation posture) | 7 | «ὁ Μᾶρκος ἀνέγραψε…» | to Theodore is more “apparatus” in tone because it narrates the act of extracting and checking text against falsification; Origen narrates “Mark wrote” but doesn’t foreground verification/correction as the reason for the bounded citation. |
| 16.4 (transition from lemma to exegesis after bounding) | 8 | «Ἄξιον ἐν τοῖς προκειμένοις ζητῆσαι…» | The apparatus-method in to Theodore is primarily about citation control (where to start/stop and then “bring in word-for-word”). Origen’s move is more a standard commentary pivot; it doesn’t itself reinforce the apparatus mechanics. |
1. Origen, Commentary on Matthew 16.4 (strongest)
Origen 16.4 exhibits the clearest and most explicit convergence with the citation technique seen in To Theodore. The passage opens by naming a pericope through its incipit, not by chapter, verse, or summary:
«Τότε προσῆλθεν αὐτῷ ἡ μήτηρ τῶν υἱῶν Ζεβεδαίου…»
This is functionally identical to Theodore’s incipit-anchoring:
«Ἀμέλει μετὰ τὸ ἦσαν δὲ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ ἀναβαίνοντες εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα…»
In both cases, the text is identified by its opening words, presupposing a reader who can locate a Gospel unit via incipit recognition.
Origen then delimits the unit with a terminus marker:
«καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως τοῦ ἀκούσαντες δὲ οἱ δέκα ἠγανάκτησαν»
This is structurally indistinguishable from Theodore’s:
«καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως, μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας ἀναστήσεται»
The syntactic skeleton is identical:
incipit → καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς → ἕως + internal clause
Origen immediately repeats the same apparatus for Mark, reinforcing that the unit—not the narrative flow—is the object of comparison:
«τὸ δ’ ὅμοιον αὐτῷ καὶ ὁ Μᾶρκος ἀνέγραψε… καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως τοῦ “ἤρξαντο ἀγανακτεῖν”»
This double deployment of the same incipit–terminus frame across two Gospels is precisely what Theodore does when he aligns Markan material after a Matthean anchor. The only formal difference is rhetorical: Theodore adds κατὰ λέξιν and ἐπιφέρει language, whereas Origen leaves the apparatus implicit.
Methodologically, however, this is the same operation.
2. Origen 16.14 (Triumphal Entry: Mt–Mk–Lk alignment)
Origen 16.14 extends the same technique across three Gospels, making the apparatus logic unmistakable. He begins with Matthew:
«Καὶ ὅτε ἤγγισαν εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα… καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως τοῦ ἐπιβεβηκὼς ἐπὶ ὄνον»
He then introduces Mark with the same framing language:
«καὶ ὁ Μᾶρκος δὲ κατὰ τὸν τόπον οὕτως ἀνέγραψε…»
And Luke:
«ὁ δὲ Λουκᾶς τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον…»
Theodore does exactly this kind of operation when he states:
«Ἐπὶ μὲν τούτοις ἕπεται τὸ… καὶ πᾶσα ἡ περικοπή»
In both authors, the Gospel texts are treated as pre-segmented units that can be placed side-by-side once their incipits are given. The phrase κατὰ τὸν τόπον in Origen corresponds functionally to Theodore’s ἐπὶ μὲν τούτοις ἕπεται, both signaling unit succession rather than narrative flow.
This passage is marginally weaker than 16.4 only because Origen spends more time on exegetical reflection after the citations; but the apparatus mechanics themselves are fully operative.
3. Origen 16.12–16.13 (Jericho healing sequence)
Origen 16.12 explicitly announces a comparison of parallel Gospel units:
«Ἐπεὶ δὲ Μᾶρκος καὶ Λουκᾶς κατὰ τινὰς μὲν τὴν αὐτὴν ἱστορίαν ἐκτίθενται… ἄξιόν γε καὶ τὰ τούτων ἰδεῖν»
He then anchors Mark’s pericope by incipit and terminus:
«καὶ ἔρχεται εἰς Ἱεριχώ… καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως τοῦ ‘καὶ ἠκολούθει αὐτῷ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ’»
Luke is introduced in the same way:
«Ἴδωμεν δὲ καὶ τὸ τοῦ Λουκᾶ οὕτως ἔχον… καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως τοῦ…»
Here again the Theodore parallel is exact. Theodore similarly writes:
«Μετὰ δὲ τὸ καὶ ἔρχεται εἰς Ἱεριχὼ ἐπάγει μόνον…»
The distinctive feature in Origen is that he explicitly reflects on sequence:
«πρῶτον… δεύτερον… τρίτον…»
This slightly weakens the resemblance because Origen now explains why the units differ, whereas Theodore is concerned only with where the unit begins and ends. Still, the linguistic signals—incipit anchoring, ἕως terminus, Gospel-by-Gospel alignment—remain apparatus-like.
4. Origen 16.15 (prophetic citation comparison)
In 16.15, Origen applies the same unit-comparison logic not to Gospel pericopes but to prophetic citations:
«οὐ γὰρ ταὐτὸν τὸ ‘χαῖρε σφόδρα, θύγατερ Σιών’ τῷ ‘εἴπατε τῇ θυγατρὶ Σιών’»
«οὐκ ἐξέθετο ὁ Ματθαῖος… ὁ δὲ Ἰωάννης…»
Theodore does something analogous when he states:
«τὸ δὲ γυμνοὶ γυμνῷ καὶ τἆλλα περὶ ὧν ἔγραψας οὐκ εὑρίσκεται»
Both authors are controlling textual limits—what belongs inside a cited unit and what does not. However, Origen no longer uses the explicit καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως frame here, which is why this section ranks lower.
5. Origen 15.37 (weakest)
Origen 15.37 is predominantly continuous allegorical exposition. It lacks:
• incipit-based citation
• terminus markers (ἕως)
• immediate Gospel-to-Gospel alignment
Although the language of διήγησις and παραβολή presupposes a bounded narrative, the apparatus is not linguistically visible. By Theodore’s standard, this is commentary after the apparatus has done its work, not the apparatus itself.
Synthesis
From 16.4 through 16.14, Origen repeatedly uses the same linguistic machinery found in To Theodore:
• Gospel units identified by incipit, not by reference numbers
• Units bounded by ἕως + internal clause
• Units immediately aligned across Gospels
• Narrative continuity subordinated to unit correspondence
Theodore’s formulation—
«μετὰ τὸ… καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως…»
—finds its closest structural parallels in Origen 16.4 and 16.14, where the same syntax is deployed multiple times in succession.
The difference between the two authors is rhetorical, not technical. Theodore foregrounds the act of citation (κατὰ λέξιν, ἐλέγχων), while Origen treats the apparatus as a shared scholarly convention, needing no explicit justification.
