| Comm. Matt. | Gospel Incipit Cited | Ammonian Section | Canon | Boundary Function | Greek Boundary Marker |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10.25 | Mt 14:15 (ὀψίας δὲ γενομένης…) | §147 | I | Start of new pericope (Feeding of the Five Thousand) | Μετὰ τοῦτο φησὶν ὁ λόγος |
in Comm. Matt. 10.25 Origen anchors his exposition at an Ammonian pericope boundary, and he does so once, precisely, and economically, by re-entering the Matthean narrative at Matthew 14:15, the incipit of Ammonian Section 147 (Canon I). By contrast, Comm. Matt. 10.24 contains no pericope-boundary citation and functions entirely as thematic and moral exposition constructed from interior scriptural material.
The Greek of Comm. Matt. 10.24 is dominated by psychological and ethical analysis of sin as sickness of the soul. Scriptural references—especially Matthew 14:14 and Matthew 22:37—are deployed illustratively and analogically. Crucially, Origen never signals a narrative restart. There is no τότε, no μετὰ τοῦτο, no resumptive temporal formula of any kind. This is exactly what one would expect if Origen is working with a pericope-based system: interior verses are freely reusable, detached from their documentary segmentation, while the pericope boundary itself remains unmarked so long as the narrative sequence is not being resumed.
The decisive shift occurs at Comm. Matt. 10.25. Origen now explicitly re-engages the Matthean narrative with the formula:
Μετὰ τοῦτο φησὶν ὁ λόγος,
followed immediately by the citation of Matthew 14:15:
ὀψίας δὲ γενομένης προσῆλθον αὐτῷ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ λέγοντες…
This verse is not selected arbitrarily. In the Ammonian system, Matthew 14:15 is the incipit of Section 147, separating the general healing activity of 14:14 from the feeding miracle proper (14:15–21). Origen’s Greek performs the same documentary work as the apparatus itself. The phrase Μετὰ τοῦτο does not merely indicate rhetorical progression; it functions as a pericope-entry signal, marking the transition into a new, coherent narrative block.
Once this boundary is crossed, Origen treats Matthew 14:15–21 as a single, unified episode. Subsequent citations—such as Matthew 14:19—are handled as internal elaboration, not as new loci requiring renewed introduction. This asymmetry is critical: Origen carefully marks the entry point but remains silent about interior seams. That pattern aligns exactly with the logic of an Ammonian apparatus, which governs where one enters the Gospel, not how often one must restate its structure.
When this practice is contrasted with the Greek of To Theodore, the difference is not one of conceptual framework but of explicitness. To Theodore verbalizes the apparatus openly:
μετὰ τὸ … καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως defines both beginning and endpoint;
κατὰ λέξιν announces verbatim transcription;
πᾶσα ἡ περικοπή names the unit as such;
μετὰ δὲ τὸ καὶ ἔρχεται εἰς Ἱεριχώ again treats the Gospel as a sequence of indexed blocks.
Origen never does this. He never names περικοπή, never marks an endpoint with ἕως, never advertises κατὰ λέξιν reproduction. Yet his structural behavior is homologous. He resumes narrative exposition exactly at a recognized Ammonian incipit (here Mt 14:15 / §147), employs resumptive temporal language that aligns with that boundary, and then allows the unit to unfold without further documentary scaffolding. This is precisely what one would expect from a commentator who uses the Ammonian apparatus silently as a navigational tool, rather than foregrounding it as an object of discussion.
Accordingly, Comm. Matt. 10.24–25 provides modest but real evidence for Origen’s use of an Ammonian-style pericope system. The evidence is narrow—limited to a single boundary in this passage—but it is precise. Origen does not scatter references indiscriminately; he re-enters the Matthean narrative exactly where an Ammonian reader would expect the next section to begin. The contrast with To Theodore sharpens the conclusion: Origen uses the apparatus; To Theodore talks about it.
