| Origen (Comm. Matt. XII) locus in your excerpt | Lemma Origen is expounding | “Ammonian” pericope-unit implied by Origen’s handling | Cross-gospel material Origen pulls in while keeping the lemma-unit intact |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12.19–12.20 | “ἤρξατο … δεικνύναι … ὅτι δεῖ αὐτὸν εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα ἀπελθεῖν καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς” | A discrete unit: the first passion prediction / beginning of the passion-teaching (Matt 16:21 as a new pericope after the confession scene) | He frames the lemma with Paul (1 Cor 1:23; 15:?) and Col 2:15 (“ἐν τῷ ξύλῳ”) and Gal 6:14; he also brings in John 12:31–32 (“νῦν ὁ ἄρχων …”) as thematic expansion, not as a new narrative unit |
| 12.21 | Peter’s protest and Jesus’ response (“ἵλεώς σοι, κύριε … ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου, σατανᾶ”) | A discrete unit: Peter rebukes Jesus / “Get behind me” (Matt 16:22–23) treated as its own lemma-block following the passion prediction | He pauses to define “σατανᾶ” as “ἀντικείμενος,” and he uses the earlier “δεῦτε ὀπίσω μου” call-text as an internal Gospel linkage that preserves the pericope boundary rather than dissolving it |
| 12.22–12.23 | The “ὀπίσω” language and “σκάνδαλον” | A discrete unit: Origen treats the vocabulary cluster (“ὀπίσω,” “σκάνδαλον”) as a bounded exegetical segment hanging directly on Matt 16:23 | John 1:38 (“στραφεὶς … τί ζητεῖτε;”) is used as a parallel motif for “στραφεὶς,” while Psalm material and Pauline language are used to interpret “σκάνδαλον”; the Matthean narrative order remains the spine |
| 12.24–12.25 | “εἴ τις θέλει ὀπίσω μου ἀκολουθεῖν …” (explicitly marked “16, 24–27”) | A discrete unit: the discipleship demand (Matt 16:24–27) handled as a single pericope, introduced and closed as a block | He imports the “take up the cross” tradition through Johannine passion detail (John 19:17ff) and contrasts it with Synoptic Simon of Cyrene (Matt/Mark/Luke), but those are subordinated as explanatory parallels rather than allowed to re-key the unit |
| 12.26–12.28 | “Ὃς γὰρ ἂν θέλῃ τὴν ψυχὴν αὑτοῦ σῶσαι … / … ἢ τί δώσει ἄνθρωπος ἀντάλλαγμα …” | A discrete sub-unit inside the discipleship block: Origen treats the “save/lose life” sayings (Matt 16:25–26) as their own internal lemma-run, a very “section-like” micro-division | The exegesis ranges widely (ethics of martyrdom, exchange/ransom imagery, Isaiah), but Origen keeps returning to the Matthean wording as the controlling anchor |
| 12.29–12.30 | “Μέλλει γὰρ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἔρχεσθαι ἐν τῇ δόξῃ …” | A discrete unit: the Son of Man coming in glory / recompense saying (Matt 16:27) treated as a separable lemma within the 16:24–27 complex | Johannine “we beheld his glory” (John 1:14) functions as a doctrinal gloss; the narrative segmentation still follows Matthew’s pericope order |
| 12.31–12.35 | “Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν … οὐ μὴ γεύσωνται θανάτου …” (explicitly marked “16, 28”) | A discrete unit: the ‘some will not taste death’ logion (Matt 16:28) treated as its own pericope following the discipleship block | Origen immediately correlates this with the transfiguration notice (“μεθ’ ἡμέρας ἓξ” / Luke’s “ὀκτώ”) as a cross-gospel harmonization move that presupposes stable, already-delimited pericope chunks |
| 12.36 (opening) | “Μετὰ δὲ ἡμέρας ἓξ … μετεμορφώθη ἔμπροσθεν αὐτῶν …” | A discrete unit: the transfiguration narrative (Matt 17:1–2ff) begins as a new section immediately after 16:28 | The very transition (“Μετὰ δὲ ἡμέρας ἓξ”) is treated as the seam between units, exactly the kind of seam Ammonian/Eusebian sectioning is built to mark |
Origen is reading Matthew as a chain of already-bounded lemma units, and then allowing other texts to illuminate those units without collapsing the Matthew-units into a free-form thematic essay. That is precisely the habit a pre-Eusebian “Ammonian” segmentation would encourage: you move in stable narrative blocks, and you harmonize by pointing outward from the block, not by re-ordering the block.
We can see the pericope seams in the way Origen repeatedly treats a new Matthean clause as a fresh starting-point: first the decisive hinge “ἤρξατο … δεικνύναι” (the passion prediction begins), then the contained exchange “ἵλεώς σοι … / ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου,” then the formal citation “16, 24–27” (discipleship unit), then the isolated logion “16, 28,” and then the next narrative unit “Μετὰ δὲ ἡμέρας ἓξ …” as the explicit seam into the transfiguration. Those are not modern chapter-break habits; they are pericope-break habits.
Just as important, Origen’s cross-gospel use behaves like a section system in embryo. John 12:31–32 is brought in to interpret “victory over the ruler” in relation to the passion prediction; John 19:17ff and the Synoptic Simon-of-Cyrene tradition are brought in to explicate “take up the cross”; Luke’s “a prophet cannot perish outside Jerusalem” is pulled to frame the “must go to Jerusalem” necessity. In each case, the foreign Gospel material functions as a parallel dossier attached to a Matthean lemma, not as a rival narrative line that takes over the sequencing. That “parallel recognition without narrative governance” is exactly what a synoptic section apparatus (Ammonian first, then Eusebian) is designed to enable.
So for the claim “Origen is already operating with pericope units that look like the later section-grid,” this passage is unusually clean evidence. The text doesn’t merely contain harmonizations; it exhibits the controlling discipline of lemma-by-lemma movement through Matthew’s corridor (confession → passion prediction → rebuke → discipleship sayings → coming-in-glory → ‘taste death’ → transfiguration), with harmonizing parallels behaving like marginal cross-references rather than like an alternative blueprint.
