| Origen’s lemma / hinge in the excerpt | What pericope-unit it presupposes in Matthew | Synoptic “equivalent” unit(s) it naturally matches | What in Origen shows he’s thinking in indexed pericope blocks (Ammonian-style), not just continuous text |
|---|---|---|---|
| “Ἡνίκα ‘διαπεράσαντες ἦλθον εἰς τὴν γῆν Γενησαρὲτ’ … καὶ … ‘παρεκάλουν ἵνα κἂν μόνον ἅψωνται τοῦ κρασπέδου … καὶ ὅσοι ἥψαντο διεσώθησαν’ ” | Matt 14:34–36 (Gennesaret; mass healings by touching the fringe) | Mark 6:53–56 (Gennesaret; touching the κράσπεδον / hem; “as many as touched were healed”) | Origen treats the Gennesaret healing vignette as a discrete, quotable unit that can be “completed” by its closing formula (“καὶ ὅσοι ἥψαντο…”). That’s exactly how a sectioned synopsis behaves: the unit ends where the healing-summary ends. |
| “Τότε προσέρχονται αὐτῷ ἀπὸ Ἱεροσολύμων Φαρισαῖοι καὶ γραμματεῖς λέγοντες…” and his insistence “Πότε οὖν τότε, κατανοητέον.” | Matt 15:1–2 (the Jerusalem delegation; handwashing; “tradition of the elders”) | Mark 7:1–5 (Jerusalem scribes/Pharisees; handwashing) | He treats “Τότε…” as an editorial seam that must be anchored to the immediately preceding pericope, and he does so by explicitly back-linking to the Gennesaret block. That is pericope-boundary reasoning: “the next indexed block begins here; ‘then’ must be timed from the end of the prior block.” |
| “οὐ γὰρ νίπτονται τὰς χεῖρας ὅταν ἄρτον ἐσθίωσιν” followed by his explanation that the charge is not “commandment of God” but “tradition” | Matt 15:1–9 (the dispute; Corban; Isaiah citation) | Mark 7:1–13 (expanded Markan form: washing traditions, Corban, etc.) | Origen’s exposition keeps the accusation/pericope intact and moves through its inner subparts as a single “case-file”: charge → principle (“tradition vs commandment”) → scriptural proof (Isaiah) → specific example (Corban). That is how one handles a self-contained section with internal subunits, not a loose run-on narrative. |
| “Καὶ προσκαλεσάμενος τὸν ὄχλον, εἶπεν… ἀκούετε καὶ συνίετε” (explicitly flagged as the next lemmatic start) | Matt 15:10–20 (defilement: what enters vs what comes out) | Mark 7:14–23 (closest structural parallel: call the crowd → principle → later explanation) | He marks a clean new start (“crowd called; listen and understand”) and then reads it as a distinct teaching-block whose logic is complete in itself (mouth-in/mouth-out → moral source). That’s the exact kind of “new section header” an Ammonian division would highlight. |
| The Mark-citation inserted as a parallel witness: “καὶ ἐν τῷ κατὰ τὸν Μᾶρκον… ‘καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα’ ” | Matt 15:10–20 interpreted through a Markan clause | Mark 7:19 (the Markan parenthetical/interpretive clause) | This is the most “synoptic-apparatus” move in the passage: Origen is not merely recalling Mark; he is importing a specific Markan wording at the point where the Matthean pericope requires it. That is exactly the workflow of an aligned set of pericope-units: you expound Matthew, but you consult the matching Mark-unit for a decisive phrase. |
Origen knows the parallel places in Mark, but that he thinks and argues in bounded Gospel blocks that behave like pre-Eusebian Ammonian sections.
The giveaway is the way “Τότε” is treated. Origen does not let “Then” float as a vague narrative connector; he forces it to attach to a specific prior unit, and he proves the attachment by quoting the closing lines of the Gennesaret healing summary (“…ἵνα κἂν μόνον ἅψωνται τοῦ κρασπέδου… καὶ ὅσοι ἥψαντο διεσώθησαν”). In other words, he is doing pericope arithmetic: the “Jerusalem delegation” episode begins after the “Gennesaret healings” episode ends. That’s exactly what an indexed system is for—anchoring the start of one unit to the end of the previous unit, especially where Matthew’s connective tissue (“τότε”) could otherwise be read loosely.
Then, once he has established that seam, he handles the Pharisees/scribes dispute (15:1–9) as a single dossier with internal sub-steps, and he keeps the sequence intact: accusation about handwashing, reframing as “tradition vs commandment,” then the Corban explanation as the concrete instantiation of the principle. That is what you see when a reader is tracking a known pericope package rather than wandering through continuous narrative.
Finally, when he turns to 15:10–20, he again begins at a clean pericope header (“προσκαλεσάμενος τὸν ὄχλον… ἀκούετε καὶ συνίετε”), and this is precisely where he reaches for Mark—not randomly, but at the point where the parallel Mark-unit contains an interpretive clause that matters for the pericope’s force (“καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα”). That is the functional signature of an Ammonian-style alignment: Matthew is the base text being expounded, but the matching Mark block is consulted for a phrase that clarifies the teaching-block’s implication.
So, even without invoking Eusebius, the mechanics are already there in Origen: discrete narrative/teaching units, seams treated as meaningful, and parallels pulled in at the level of the unit, not merely at the level of a shared theme. That is exactly the kind of “pre-Eusebian Ammonian pericope” consciousness we've trying to isolate.
