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.
