| Origen, Comm. Matt. (section) | Greek lemma as Origen gives it | Ammonian section (Matthew) | Boundary signal | One–two sentence summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10.11 | Πάλιν ὁμοία ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν σαγήνῃ βληθείσῃ εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν | Ammonian §71 (Matt 13:47–50), Canon X | Beginning (fresh incipit: Πάλιν ὁμοία…) | Origen opens a new unit with the parable’s incipit, treating the dragnet saying as a discrete pericope. This corresponds exactly to Ammonian §71, which isolates Matt 13:47–50 as a Matthean-only unit. |
| 10.14 | Συνήκατε ταῦτα πάντα; Λέγουσι ναί | Ammonian §72 (Matt 13:51–52), Canon X | Beginning (new dialogue incipit: Συνήκατε…) | Origen resets again at a clean narrative seam: Jesus’ comprehension-question and concluding logion. This matches Ammonian §72, which groups 13:51–52 as a separate closing unit to the discourse. |
| 10.10–10.13 (running commentary) | (no new Gospel incipit beyond those above) | Interior to Ammonian §71 (Matt 13:47–50) | Interior | Between 10.11 and 10.14 Origen never re-anchors the Gospel text; all exposition remains within the dragnet pericope. This is exactly how intra-pericope commentary behaves in an Ammonian framework. |
What matters here is not whether Origen knew Ammonius’s numbered scheme—he never cites section numbers—but that he repeatedly behaves as though the Gospel comes to him in discrete, restartable blocks marked by incipits. In this excerpt he does so twice, and in both cases exactly where the later Ammonian system places a boundary. First, he resets at the opening of the dragnet parable, “Πάλιν ὁμοία ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία…,” which corresponds to Ammonian §71 (Matt 13:47–50). Then he resets again at the next narrative seam, “Συνήκατε ταῦτα πάντα;,” corresponding to Ammonian §72 (Matt 13:51–52). These are precisely the points where the Matthean discourse moves from one illustrative unit to the next.
In other words, Origen’s lemma-practice is already pericope-minded. He rekeys the reader with a fresh Gospel incipit when he crosses into a new illustrative unit, and he refrains from doing so while he remains within the same unit. That restraint is just as important as the resets themselves. This is exactly the behavioral precondition that makes Ammonian segmentation possible: stable unit boundaries recognized through incipits and narrative seams, before any marginal numbering is imposed.
The later Ammonian system does not invent these divisions; it formalizes them. What it adds—what Origen does not supply—is an explicit sequence number. But the logic of §71 and §72 is already operative in Origen’s handling of Matthew 13.
