| Boundary citation in Comm. Matt. 11.4–7 | Gospel | Is it a boundary (Ammonian incipit used as a unit-start) | Ammonian no. | Canon | Range |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mt 14:22 (“Καὶ εὐθέως ἠνάγκασε…”) | Matthew | Yes | 148 | 6 | Matthew 14:22 |
| Mk 6:45 (“καὶ εὐθὺς ἠνάγκασε…”) | Mark | Yes | 65 | 6 | Mark 6:45 |
| Mt 5:1 (“Ἰδὼν δὲ τοὺς ὄχλους ἀνέβη εἰς τὸ ὄρος…”) | Matthew | Yes | 24 | 10 | Matthew 5:1 |
| Mt 12:46–50 (“Λαλοῦντος αὐτοῦ τοῖς ὄχλοις…”) | Matthew | Yes | 130 | 2 | Matthew 12:46–50 |
| Mt 13:36–53 (“ἀφίησι… τοὺς ὄχλους… καὶ ἔρχεται εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν…”) | Matthew | Yes | 140 | 10 | Matthew 13:36–53 |
What Comm. Matt. 11:4–7 shows, in Greek, is a procedural engagement with Gospel material that is compatible with an Ammonian pericope framework, but not an explicit invocation of it.
Origen’s practice in this section is characterized by three tightly related features.
First, he anchors comparison by incipit-style citation. When he aligns Matthew with Mark and Luke, he introduces each Gospel by quoting a recognizable opening clause of the relevant episode rather than by citing an interior saying at random. This choice is not stylistic ornament. It presupposes that the Gospel narrative is navigated by identifiable starting points — the very logic that underlies Ammonius’s segmentation. Origen behaves as though the decisive question is “where does the episode begin in each Gospel?” not “where can I find a useful sentence?”
Second, Origen’s synoptic differentiation operates within an already-aligned narrative unit. The Greek formulae distinguishing κοινόν and μόνον (“ὁ δὲ Ἰωάννης μόνος…”) assume that the pericope has been located first and that variation is now being measured internally. This is exactly how an Ammonian table functions in practice: the table gets you to the shared unit; interpretation then turns to divergence of wording or detail. Origen never names the table, but his comparative logic presupposes its effect.
Third, his resumptive narrative language treats Gospel material as blocks that can be left and re-entered. Even amid discursive exposition, Origen signals return to the narrative sequence with temporal or narrative resumptives rather than drifting by free association. That is, he does not dissolve the Gospel into atomized prooftexts. He treats it as segmented but continuous — again, the conceptual posture that an Ammonian apparatus trains.
When this is set against the language of To Theodore (2), the contrast is sharp and decisive.
Theodore’s Greek does not merely conform to pericope logic; it verbalizes the apparatus itself. The phrases
μετὰ τὸ … καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως …,
Ὧδε ἐπιφέρει κατὰ λέξιν,
πᾶσα ἡ περικοπή,
μετὰ δὲ τὸ … ἐπάγει,
are not interpretive habits but documentary instructions. They mark explicit start-points, end-points, sequence relations, and verbatim transcription boundaries. This is the language of someone consciously operating with indexed Gospel units and telling the reader how to follow them.
So, in evaluative terms:
• Comm. Matt. 11:4–7 is a weaker but genuine witness: Origen’s Greek behavior is entirely consistent with use of an Ammonian-style apparatus, but it does not require one. It shows procedural alignment, not explicit acknowledgment.
• To Theodore (2) is a strong witness: its Greek explicitly names, enacts, and explains pericope boundaries in a way that only makes sense in a world already shaped by such an apparatus.
In short: Origen uses the habits the Ammonian system codifies; Theodore talks the system itself.
