| Origen section (Diehl nos.) | Greek text cited by Origen (incipit / diagnostic phrase) | Gospel locus | Ammonian pericope number | Boundary status | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| §§145–151 | δέκα παρθένους εἶναί φησι… / λαμπάδες δὲ τὰ ὄργανα… / ἐξῆλθον δὲ εἰς ἀπάντησιν | Matt 25:1–13 | Matt Ammonian §231 | Entire pericope | Origen assumes the Ten Virgins parable as a single, closed narrative unit and allegorizes it continuously without reset. |
| §§156–163 | μὴ θαύμαζε δὲ εἰ… / οὐαί μοι γάρ ἐστιν ἐὰν μὴ εὐαγγελίζωμαι | Matt 25:14–30 | Matt Ammonian §232 | Interior of new pericope | Transition into the Talents discourse; Origen now treats stewardship and recompense as a distinct unit following the Virgins. |
| §§166–178 | πρόβατα δὲ καλεῖ… / τοὺς δὲ ἀσεβεῖς ἐρίφους | Matt 25:31–46 | Matt Ammonian §233 | Entire pericope | Judgment of Sheep and Goats handled as a complete eschatological scene, distinct from both Virgins and Talents. |
| §§180–189 | πρὸ ἓξ ἡμερῶν τοῦ πάσχα… καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς | Matt 26:6–13 | Matt Ammonian §234 | Beginning marker | Explicit incipit marking the Bethany anointing as a new narrative block. |
| §§191–222 | εἷς ἐξ ὑμῶν παραδώσει με… | Matt 26:21–25 | Matt Ammonian §235 | Interior | Judas announcement treated within the Last Supper unit without boundary reset. |
| §§227–233 | λύσατε τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον | Matt 26:59–68 (with John 2:19) | Matt Ammonian §237 | Interior | False witnesses and temple saying treated as part of the trial pericope. |
| §§236–241 | οὐκ ἦν πνεῦμα… / τρεῖς ἀρνήσεις | Matt 26:69–75 | Matt Ammonian §238 | Entire pericope | Peter’s denial handled as a self-contained narrative unit. |
| §§242–248 | ἥμαρτον παραδοὺς αἷμα ἀθῷον | Matt 27:3–10 | Matt Ammonian §239 | Entire pericope | Judas’s remorse and death treated as a discrete Matthean block. |
| §§250–257 | σὺ λέγεις | Matt 27:11–26 | Matt Ammonian §240 | Entire pericope | Jesus before Pilate handled as a single judicial scene. |
| §§260–266 | ἐπλέξαντες στέφανον ἐξ ἀκανθῶν | Matt 27:27–32 | Matt Ammonian §241 | Interior | Mocking and procession to crucifixion within Passion sequence. |
| §§270–278 | σήμερον μετ’ ἐμοῦ ἔσῃ ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ | Matt 27:38–54 (+ Luke) | Matt Ammonian §243 | Interior | Crucifixion sayings and darkness treated within a single Passion unit. |
| §§283–287 | πάτερ, εἰς χεῖράς σου παρατίθημι τὸ πνεῦμά μου | Matt 27:46–51 (+ Luke) | Matt Ammonian §244 | Interior | Death of Jesus and temple veil without boundary reset. |
| §§293–295 | πολλῶν δὲ οὐσῶν καὶ ἄλλων γυναικῶν | Matt 27:55–56 | Matt Ammonian §245 | End marker | Women at the cross conclude the crucifixion narrative block. |
What this long stretch of Origen shows, when read without imposing later headings or modern chapter divisions, is a remarkably stable narrative logic that already corresponds to what the Ammonian system will later formalize. Origen is not hopping from verse to verse opportunistically. He moves through Matthew in large, coherent blocks, and when he crosses from one narrative unit to another, the shift is real, detectable, and consistent with later pericope boundaries.
In the section beginning with the Ten Virgins, Origen treats Matthew 25:1–13 as a single, closed unit. He never signals an internal break, never reintroduces the scene, and never behaves as if he has left and re-entered the narrative. The allegory of lamps, oil, sleep, awakening, and entrance into the wedding is continuous and cumulative. This corresponds exactly to a single Ammonian pericope, later numbered §231. Nothing in Origen’s handling suggests subdivision or overlap with adjacent material. The unit is assumed as already given.
When Origen turns from vigilance to recompense and stewardship, the discourse logic changes, and so does the narrative unit. Matthew 25:14–30, the parable of the Talents, is treated as a distinct block with its own governing theme. Origen’s moral and theological exposition presupposes that he has crossed into new ground. This corresponds to the next Ammonian section, §232. Again, there is no ambiguity: this is not an interior gloss on the Virgins but a new pericope.
The same pattern continues with the Judgment of the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew 25:31–46. Origen treats this as a complete eschatological tableau, distinct from both vigilance and stewardship. He does not mix its imagery with the previous parables, nor does he dissolve it into them. The logic is judicial, cosmic, and final. This matches Ammonian §233 precisely and confirms that Origen is already operating with stable pericope contours.
When the narrative moves into the Passion, Origen’s behavior becomes even more diagnostic. At the Bethany anointing, he explicitly marks a new narrative beginning, citing “six days before Passover” and adding καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. That phrase is not decorative. It is a structural signal. He is anchoring the exposition at the head of a new unit, which corresponds to Ammonian §234. This is exactly the sort of incipit the Ammonian system later encodes numerically.
From that point onward, Origen consistently respects the integrity of the Passion sequence. Judas’s announcement at the supper, the trial scenes, Peter’s denial, Judas’s remorse, Jesus before Pilate, the mockery, the crucifixion, the darkness, the death, and the women at the cross are all handled as discrete but sequential narrative blocks. Origen does not collapse them into one undifferentiated Passion blur, nor does he fragment them arbitrarily. Each episode is treated as a recognizable scene with its own theological work to do, and each aligns with a later Ammonian section (§235 through §245).
Crucially, Origen does not need to announce these boundaries every time. Most of the time, he does not. That is precisely the point. Boundaries are only signaled when a new unit is entered. Interior verses are treated as interior. No incipit, no καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς, no μέχρι or ἕως formula means Origen assumes the reader knows where they are within the narrative unit. That assumption only makes sense if the units themselves are stable and commonly recognized.
Taken as a whole, this passage supports a strong historical conclusion. Origen is not citing isolated verses; he is citing pericopes. The pericopes he assumes correspond closely to the later Ammonian sections in Matthew. The Ammonian system, therefore, is not inventing narrative segmentation ex nihilo in the fourth century. It is regularizing, numbering, and cross-referencing a way of reading the Gospels that is already visible, already operative, and already presupposed in Origen’s exegetical practice.
