| Origen Section | Matthean Verses | Pericope Boundary Signal | Synoptic Parallels Presupposed | Ammonian Logic Evident |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12.1–4 | Matt 16:1–4 | Formal narrative incipit: προσἐλθόντες Φαρισαῖοι καὶ Σαδδουκαῖοι | Mark 8:11–13; Luke 11:16, 29–30 | Treated as a single test-pericope (sign demand), not merged with surrounding controversy material |
| 12.5–8 | Matt 16:5–12 | Change of setting (εἰς τὸ πέραν) + disciples alone | Mark 8:14–21; Luke 12:1 (partial thematic) | New pericope: leaven saying isolated and internally interpreted |
| 12.9–10 | Matt 16:13–16 | Explicit geographic marker: Καισάρεια Φιλίππου | Mark 8:27–29; Luke 9:18–20 | Confession pericope treated as discrete narrative unit |
| 12.10–14 | Matt 16:17–19 | Direct speech block with logion cluster | Partial Markan overlap; Matthean expansion | Origen preserves Matthean expansion as a bounded pericope, not diffused elsewhere |
| 12.15ff. | Matt 16:20–28 (transition implied) | Shift to Passion prediction logic | Mark 8:30–38; Luke 9:21–27 | Signals next Ammonian unit, though Origen delays full exposition |
Origen’s treatment of Matthew 16 in Commentary Book 12 shows that he is not inventing pericope boundaries ad hoc, nor merely following the surface flow of Matthew’s prose. He is working with stable narrative units that correspond closely to what later becomes formalized in the Ammonian Sections.
First, Origen consistently respects hard pericope breaks. The demand for a sign (Matt 16:1–4) is treated as a closed unit. Although Origen ranges widely in theological reflection—drawing in Jonah, Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, Herod and Pilate—he never dissolves the pericope into adjacent material. The question-and-response structure itself defines the unit. This is exactly the logic of Ammonius: the pericope is defined by narrative function, not by length or theological topic.
Second, Origen clearly recognizes the crossing to “the other side” (εἰς τὸ πέραν) as a structural marker, not a rhetorical flourish. The leaven saying (Matt 16:5–12) is isolated as a new pericope, aligned implicitly with Mark 8:14–21. Origen’s extended allegorical exposition of leaven does not blur the boundary; it presupposes it. The allegory unfolds within the pericope, not across pericopes.
Third, the Caesarea Philippi scene (Matt 16:13–16) is handled as a self-contained narrative block, with its own geographic anchoring and dialogical climax. Origen treats the confession as a discrete episode whose synoptic identity is obvious. He does not attempt to harmonize it into earlier controversy material or later Passion teaching. This reflects a pre-Eusebian assumption that this scene already exists as a recognized synoptic unit.
Fourth, Origen’s handling of Matt 16:17–19 is especially revealing. The Matthean expansion (“σὺ εἶ Πέτρος…”) is preserved as a bounded saying-cluster, not redistributed across discipleship teaching or ecclesiology elsewhere. Origen’s famous universalizing interpretation of Peter does not require him to dissolve the pericope structurally. Theology is expansive; the pericope boundary is not.
Finally, the transition toward Passion prediction is acknowledged but not collapsed backward. Origen signals that a new unit is coming, even when he delays full exposition. This shows sensitivity to sequence, not merely content.
Taken together, these features demonstrate that Origen is already reading Matthew through a segmented Gospel map that closely matches what later appears in the Ammonian system and is finally stabilized by Eusebius. The evidence does not suggest that Eusebius imposed structure ex nihilo. Rather, Origen’s commentary shows that the logic of fixed synoptic pericopes was already operative in the early third century, before the Eusebian canons formalized it.
In short, Origen is not anticipating Eusebius by theory; he is presupposing the same documentary reality.
