One of the clearest internal indications that Origen is consulting an Ammonian-style synoptic apparatus appears not in an abstract methodological statement, but in a moment of exegetical strain—when the Matthean text he is explaining does not quite line up with Mark and Luke unless a different Matthean recension is brought into view.
The passage in question comes from Commentary on Matthew 12.15, on Matthew 16:20, the secrecy command following Peter’s confession. Origen introduces the verse in the familiar Matthean form:
τότε διεστείλατο τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ ἵνα μηδενὶ εἴπωσιν ὅτι αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός
(Matt 16:20)
At this point, nothing is unusual. But Origen immediately destabilizes the text by noting that this is not the only Matthean form in circulation:
ὁ μὲν οὖν Ματθαῖος πεποίηκε κατὰ τινὰ τῶν ἀντιγράφων τὸ τότε διεστείλατο…
ἰστέον μέντοι ὅτι τινὰ τῶν ἀντιγράφων τοῦ κατὰ Ματθαῖον ἔχει τὸ ἐπετίμησεν
This is already striking. Origen is not merely acknowledging textual variation in the abstract; he is explicitly saying that Matthew itself exists in two forms at precisely this verse—one with διεστείλατο, another with ἐπετίμησεν. The latter verb is significant because it aligns Matthew more closely with the other Synoptics.
Origen then immediately places Matthew side by side with Mark and Luke:
ὁ δὲ Μᾶρκος “ἐπετίμησεν αὐτοῖς” φησὶν “ἵνα μηδενὶ λέγωσι περὶ αὐτοῦ”
(Mark 8:30)
ὁ δὲ Λουκᾶς “ἐπιτιμήσας” φησὶν “αὐτοῖς παρήγγειλε μηδενὶ λέγειν τοῦτο”
(Luke 9:21)
At this point Origen asks the question that drives the entire discussion:
τί δὲ “τοῦτο”;
Luke’s τοῦτο (“this”) is ambiguous if Luke is read in isolation. Origen resolves the ambiguity by appealing back to the confession scene:
ὅτι καὶ κατ’ αὐτὸν ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Πέτρος εἶπε… “τὸν Χριστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ”
In other words, Luke’s demonstrative only becomes intelligible when read through Matthew and Mark. And crucially, it becomes most intelligible when Matthew’s wording is the version that verbally converges with them—namely, the Matthean reading with ἐπετίμησεν.
This is where the “smoking gun” emerges. The original reference to "variants" of Matthew that precedes the side by side comparison is necessary because Origen is clearly using a different text of Matthew than his source (for the textual criticism).
Origen is not simply commenting on a single Matthean manuscript and then, as an afterthought, checking parallels. He is clearly operating within a three-column mental space—Matthew, Mark, Luke—where discrepancies in one column exert pressure on the others. Under that pressure, Origen becomes aware of (and explicitly names) a Matthean recension that better fits the synoptic alignment than the Matthean text he initially cited.
That behavior is very difficult to explain if Origen is only reading Matthew sequentially. It makes far more sense if he is consulting something like an Ammonian synopsis, where Matthew is laid out alongside Mark and Luke pericope by pericope. In such a setting, Matthew’s text is not encountered only in the form preserved in Origen’s continuous exemplar; it is encountered as represented in the table, and that representation may preserve or reflect a different textual form.
This also explains why Origen raises the variant here and not elsewhere. The secrecy command is precisely the place where the three Gospels converge narratively but diverge verbally. Luke’s τοῦτο forces a clarification; Mark’s ἐπετίμησεν provides verbal ballast; and Matthew’s wording becomes the point of tension. The variant is not introduced out of antiquarian interest but because the synoptic comparison demands it.
In short, Origen’s procedure here exhibits three features characteristic of Ammonian use:
-
Pericope-based alignment: Matthew 16:20, Mark 8:30, and Luke 9:21 are treated as a single bounded unit whose internal coherence must be explained synoptically.
-
Textual pressure from parallels: Luke’s ambiguity and Mark’s wording drive Origen to reconsider Matthew’s text.
-
Awareness of a Matthean form not identical with the base commentary text: Origen explicitly acknowledges “some copies of Matthew” that align more closely with Mark and Luke.
It is, indeed, curious that Origen should reference a different Matthean recension at the very moment he is coordinating Matthew, Mark, and Luke—unless Matthew is being read through a synoptic grid. That grid does not need to be named for its effects to be visible. The logic of comparison, the surfacing of variants, and the resolution of ambiguity all point in the same direction.
This passage does not merely allow the hypothesis that Origen is using Ammonius. It strongly suggests it.
