The Core Argument:
1. The Structural Similarity Between Quis Dives Salvetur and to Theodore
(a) both structured around a citation of an unknown gospel + appeal to anonymous Alexandrian pericope apparatus (AAPA)
2. The Existence of AAPA
(a) Eusebius's statement in Ad Carpianum
(b) Origen's Commentary on Matthew and other texts and his use of Ammonius
(c) to Theodore and Origen compared
Clement's method in the to Theodore section that deals with the relative placement of the passages from "mystic Mark" is to (a) anchor on a fixed incipit (“Ἀμέλει μετὰ τὸ ἦσαν δὲ…”) as a unit label; (b) signal a bounded stretch with καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως; (c) announce verbatim carry-over (Ὧδε ἐπιφέρει κατὰ λέξιν); (d) stitch the cited unit into a sequence of adjacent units using boundary formulas (Ἐπὶ μὲν τούτοις ἕπεται…, Μετὰ δὲ τὸ… ἐπάγει… μόνον); (e) treat the unit as something you can look up, not just paraphrase, and police what “is / isn’t found” (οὐκ εὑρίσκεται).
| Passage | Score (1–10) | Apparatus-like signals present (linguistic/method) | What keeps it from scoring higher |
|---|---|---|---|
| 16.3 | 9 | Explicitly introduces a bounded citation block as an object: “λέξιν οὕτως ἔχουσαν … καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως τοῦ …”; then uses ἐπὶ τούτοις to mark immediate sequential adjacency (“ἐπὶ τούτοις γὰρ εἴρηται … καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς”). This is extremely close to (1)’s unit labeling + boundary shorthand + “after this comes…” linkage. | Lacks an explicit κατὰ λέξιν flag and lacks a strong synoptic comparison step in the excerpt itself (it becomes theological-historical exposition). |
| 15.37 | 2 | Almost no pericope-bounding mechanics; it’s continuous allegorical exposition on the parable (ἄμπελος = ἐκκλησία, etc.). The only “method” is paraenetic and rhetorical. | No ἑξῆς/ἕως, no incipit anchoring, no cross-gospel comparison, no sequencing-by-boundaries. It’s the opposite of apparatus shorthand. |
| Origen | Score (1–10) for resemblance to to Theodore's apparatus-method | Key apparatus-like linguistic signals (quoted) | Why not higher |
|---|---|---|---|
| 16.18 | 10 | Full-on bounded blocks + explicit synoptic collation in (1)’s exact register: “τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως … (ματτη. 21, 6–11)”; then “ὁ δὲ Μᾶρκος… καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως …”; then “καὶ ὁ Λουκᾶς… καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως …”. This is pericope-range shorthand applied consecutively across gospels, i.e., apparatus behavior, not merely commentary. | It lacks an explicit “κατὰ λέξιν” flag, but functionally it’s doing the same compression-by-range work. |
| 16.16 | 7 | Strong synoptic triangulation with iterative quotation formulas: “κατὰ τὸν Ματθαῖον … ἢ … κατὰ τὸν Μᾶρκον …”; then “ἤ …”; then “καὶ κατὰ τὸν Λουκᾶν δέ …”. Also explicit “sequence/nextness” vocabulary: “ὁ λόγος τῶν ἑξῆς ἀκόλουθος…”. This is apparatus-adjacent (tracking parallel forms + order). | It mostly collates phrases/variants rather than delimiting whole units with “ἑξῆς ἕως” blocks. It’s more “synoptic comparison” than “pericope apparatus.” |
| 16.17 | 5 | Explicit cross-gospel mapping (toponym differences): “Βηθφαγὴ μὲν κατὰ Ματθαῖον, Βηθανίας δὲ κατὰ τὸν Μᾶρκον, … κατὰ τὸν Λουκᾶν.” That’s comparison-by-gospel labels, which is part of the same methodological world. | No bounded-range shorthand; no incipit-as-unit label; it moves quickly into etymology/allegory, so the apparatus signal is intermittent. |
| Origen passage | Score (1–10) for resemblance to to Theodore's apparatus-method | Key apparatus-like linguistic signals (quoted) | Why not higher |
|---|---|---|---|
| 16.4 (Matthew lemma as bounded unit) | 9 | «Τότε προσῆλθεν αὐτῷ ἡ μήτηρ τῶν υἱῶν Ζεβεδαίου…»; «καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως τοῦ ἀκούσαντες δὲ οἱ δέκα ἠγανάκτησαν…» | No explicit “diagnostic/polemical” frame like to Theodore («τὰ κατεψευσμένα ἐλέγχων»), and no “κατὰ λέξιν” tag attached to the lemma itself. |
| 16.4 (Mark lemma explicitly paired) | 10 | «τὸ δ’ ὅμοιον αὐτῷ καὶ ὁ Μᾶρκος ἀνέγραψε τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον»; «καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως τοῦ “ἤρξαντο ἀγανακτεῖν…”» | The mechanism matches perfectly (incipit + “next bits” + ἕως-terminus), but it still lacks to Theodore’s “κατὰ λέξιν” / “Ὧδε ἐπιφέρει” self-conscious citation rhetoric. |
| 16.4 (apparatus-style equivalence marker) | 9 | «τὸ δ’ ὅμοιον αὐτῷ…» | to Theodore is more explicitly “apparatus-like” because it cues a sequence of aligned material (“μετὰ τὸ… καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως …”), whereas «τὸ ὅμοιον» is a looser equivalence label (even though it functions similarly here). |
| 16.4 (hard boundary construction: incipit → terminus) | 10 | «καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως τοῦ…» (twice, for Mt and Mk) | Not higher only in the sense that to Theodore adds “meta-citation” guidance to the reader (“Ὧδε ἐπιφέρει κατὰ λέξιν”), making the apparatus function more overt. |
| 16.4 (explicit authorial citation posture) | 7 | «ὁ Μᾶρκος ἀνέγραψε…» | to Theodore is more “apparatus” in tone because it narrates the act of extracting and checking text against falsification; Origen narrates “Mark wrote” but doesn’t foreground verification/correction as the reason for the bounded citation. |
| 16.4 (transition from lemma to exegesis after bounding) | 8 | «Ἄξιον ἐν τοῖς προκειμένοις ζητῆσαι…» | The apparatus-method in to Theodore is primarily about citation control (where to start/stop and then “bring in word-for-word”). Origen’s move is more a standard commentary pivot; it doesn’t itself reinforce the apparatus mechanics. |
Origen 16.4 exhibits the clearest and most explicit convergence with the citation technique seen in To Theodore. The passage opens by naming a pericope through its incipit, not by chapter, verse, or summary:
«Τότε προσῆλθεν αὐτῷ ἡ μήτηρ τῶν υἱῶν Ζεβεδαίου…»
This is functionally identical to Theodore’s incipit-anchoring:
«Ἀμέλει μετὰ τὸ ἦσαν δὲ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ ἀναβαίνοντες εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα…»
In both cases, the text is identified by its opening words, presupposing a reader who can locate a Gospel unit via incipit recognition.
Origen then delimits the unit with a terminus marker:
«καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως τοῦ ἀκούσαντες δὲ οἱ δέκα ἠγανάκτησαν»
This is structurally indistinguishable from Theodore’s:
«καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως, μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας ἀναστήσεται»
The syntactic skeleton is identical:
incipit → καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς → ἕως + internal clause
Origen immediately repeats the same apparatus for Mark, reinforcing that the unit—not the narrative flow—is the object of comparison:
«τὸ δ’ ὅμοιον αὐτῷ καὶ ὁ Μᾶρκος ἀνέγραψε… καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως τοῦ “ἤρξαντο ἀγανακτεῖν”»
This double deployment of the same incipit–terminus frame across two Gospels is precisely what Theodore does when he aligns Markan material after a Matthean anchor. The only formal difference is rhetorical: Theodore adds κατὰ λέξιν and ἐπιφέρει language, whereas Origen leaves the apparatus implicit.
Methodologically, however, this is the same operation.
Origen 16.14 extends the same technique across three Gospels, making the apparatus logic unmistakable. He begins with Matthew:
«Καὶ ὅτε ἤγγισαν εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα… καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως τοῦ ἐπιβεβηκὼς ἐπὶ ὄνον»
He then introduces Mark with the same framing language:
«καὶ ὁ Μᾶρκος δὲ κατὰ τὸν τόπον οὕτως ἀνέγραψε…»
And Luke:
«ὁ δὲ Λουκᾶς τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον…»
Theodore does exactly this kind of operation when he states:
«Ἐπὶ μὲν τούτοις ἕπεται τὸ… καὶ πᾶσα ἡ περικοπή»
In both authors, the Gospel texts are treated as pre-segmented units that can be placed side-by-side once their incipits are given. The phrase κατὰ τὸν τόπον in Origen corresponds functionally to Theodore’s ἐπὶ μὲν τούτοις ἕπεται, both signaling unit succession rather than narrative flow.
This passage is marginally weaker than 16.4 only because Origen spends more time on exegetical reflection after the citations; but the apparatus mechanics themselves are fully operative.
Origen 16.12 explicitly announces a comparison of parallel Gospel units:
«Ἐπεὶ δὲ Μᾶρκος καὶ Λουκᾶς κατὰ τινὰς μὲν τὴν αὐτὴν ἱστορίαν ἐκτίθενται… ἄξιόν γε καὶ τὰ τούτων ἰδεῖν»
He then anchors Mark’s pericope by incipit and terminus:
«καὶ ἔρχεται εἰς Ἱεριχώ… καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως τοῦ ‘καὶ ἠκολούθει αὐτῷ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ’»
Luke is introduced in the same way:
«Ἴδωμεν δὲ καὶ τὸ τοῦ Λουκᾶ οὕτως ἔχον… καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως τοῦ…»
Here again the Theodore parallel is exact. Theodore similarly writes:
«Μετὰ δὲ τὸ καὶ ἔρχεται εἰς Ἱεριχὼ ἐπάγει μόνον…»
The distinctive feature in Origen is that he explicitly reflects on sequence:
«πρῶτον… δεύτερον… τρίτον…»
This slightly weakens the resemblance because Origen now explains why the units differ, whereas Theodore is concerned only with where the unit begins and ends. Still, the linguistic signals—incipit anchoring, ἕως terminus, Gospel-by-Gospel alignment—remain apparatus-like.
In 16.15, Origen applies the same unit-comparison logic not to Gospel pericopes but to prophetic citations:
«οὐ γὰρ ταὐτὸν τὸ ‘χαῖρε σφόδρα, θύγατερ Σιών’ τῷ ‘εἴπατε τῇ θυγατρὶ Σιών’»
«οὐκ ἐξέθετο ὁ Ματθαῖος… ὁ δὲ Ἰωάννης…»
Theodore does something analogous when he states:
«τὸ δὲ γυμνοὶ γυμνῷ καὶ τἆλλα περὶ ὧν ἔγραψας οὐκ εὑρίσκεται»
Both authors are controlling textual limits—what belongs inside a cited unit and what does not. However, Origen no longer uses the explicit καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως frame here, which is why this section ranks lower.
Origen 15.37 is predominantly continuous allegorical exposition. It lacks:
• incipit-based citation
• terminus markers (ἕως)
• immediate Gospel-to-Gospel alignment
Although the language of διήγησις and παραβολή presupposes a bounded narrative, the apparatus is not linguistically visible. By Theodore’s standard, this is commentary after the apparatus has done its work, not the apparatus itself.
From 16.4 through 16.14, Origen repeatedly uses the same linguistic machinery found in To Theodore:
• Gospel units identified by incipit, not by reference numbers
• Units bounded by ἕως + internal clause
• Units immediately aligned across Gospels
• Narrative continuity subordinated to unit correspondence
Theodore’s formulation—
«μετὰ τὸ… καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως…»
—finds its closest structural parallels in Origen 16.4 and 16.14, where the same syntax is deployed multiple times in succession.
The difference between the two authors is rhetorical, not technical. Theodore foregrounds the act of citation (κατὰ λέξιν, ἐλέγχων), while Origen treats the apparatus as a shared scholarly convention, needing no explicit justification.
| Work + locus | What Origen does (pericope mechanics) | Greek textual indicators (quoted) | Why this is “apparatus-grade,” not generic harmonizing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Comm. Matt. 16.7–16.8 | Builds a bounded Matthean run, then maps it boundary-to-boundary onto Mark, then instructs place-based collation and order-checking | “καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως τοῦ…”; “τούτοις τὰ ἰσοδυναμοῦντα καὶ ὁ Μᾶρκος ἀνέγραψεν”; “ἐτηρήσαμεν… τὴν τάξιν”; “παραθεὶς τὰ εὐαγγέλια ἀλλήλοις κατὰ τοὺς τόπους τούτους καὶ συγκρίνων” | This is nearly a prose description of table-use: define a segment, find the equivalent segment in another Gospel, then compare “by places” and test τάξις across the aligned run. |
| Comm. Matt. 16.1–16.2 | Triangulates Matthew–Mark–Luke by giving incipits and shared termini (prediction endpoint), then narrows scope to Matthew | “καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως τοῦ… καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἀναστήσεται”; “τὰ ἰσοδυναμοῦντα”; “ὁ Λουκᾶς… δόξει τούτοις συνᾴδειν”; “ἐπεὶ τὸ κατὰ Ματθαῖον πρόκειται νῦν ἐξετάζειν” | The repeated incipit→terminus bracketing across multiple witnesses is exactly what a pericope apparatus formalizes. The “now examine Matthew” line reads like a commentary-scope switch after doing synopsis-work. |
| Comm. Matt. 16.4 | Matches the Zebedee request episode as a whole (not a verse) across Matthew and Mark via matching endpoints | “καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως τοῦ… ἠγανάκτησαν”; “τὸ δ’ ὅμοιον αὐτῷ καὶ ὁ Μᾶρκος ἀνέγραψε”; again “καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως τοῦ… ἀγανακτεῖν” | Boundary-to-boundary mapping (“ἕως τοῦ …”) is operationally closer to a section-table than to casual parallel citing. |
| Comm. Matt. 6.13 | Performs an explicit procedure: compare gospels for one episode, omit κοινά, extract ἴδια, and align by movement-phrases | “Ἴδωμεν δὲ καὶ τὸ τοῦ Λουκᾶ…”; “καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως τοῦ…”; “τὰ μὲν κοινὰ… οὐκ ἐπαναληψόμεθα, τὰ δὲ καίρια καὶ ἴδια… παραστήσομεν” | “Common vs distinctive” is the working logic of synopsis tables: you only separate κοινά/ἴδια if the pericope is already aligned as “the same place” in multiple witnesses. |
| Comm. Matt. 17.29 | Defines a pericope by incipit + terminus; then explains “that day” by the adjacent pericope-chain and explicitly marks synoptic equivalence | “Ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ… καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς, ἕως τοῦ…”; “τὰ δὲ ἰσοδυναμοῦντα τούτοις… καὶ παρὰ τῷ Μάρκῳ καὶ τῷ Λουκᾶ”; “δευτέρα… τρίτη… τετάρτη ἐπερώτησις” | Apparatus thinking shows up twice: (i) explicit pericope bracketing, (ii) treating a narrative stretch as a run of discrete Q/A “blocks” whose adjacency resolves an incipit (“that day”). |
| Comm. Matt. 10.16 | Reads a seam-formula as a boundary rubric whose scope must be decided | “Καὶ ἐγένετο, ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν… μετῆρεν ἐκεῖθεν” (treated as a delimiting closure) | The point is not the phrase itself (everyone sees it) but Origen’s range-testing of what it closes—boundary anxiety is pericope-engine behavior. |
| Comm. Matt. 16.12 | Frames a synoptic problem as “same history vs similar history,” then reads Mark’s Jericho run as a bounded unit and argues “according to the place” | “κατὰ τὸν τόπον”; “ἄξιόν γε καὶ τὰ τούτων ἰδεῖν”; Mark cited with “καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς, ἕως τοῦ…” | “Same vs similar” is exactly the decision a pericope apparatus forces you to confront: are we aligning one unit or two look-alikes? Origen makes that decision framework explicit. |
| Comm. Matt. 12.15 (end) | Variant-awareness in Matthew becomes visible because Origen is reading inside a synoptic alignment; he explicitly appeals to manuscripts | “κατὰ τινα τῶν ἀντιγράφων”; Matthew reading “ἐπετίμησεν” aligns with Mark “ἐπετίμησεν” and Luke “ἐπιτιμήσας” (as Origen observes) | This is the sharpest “apparatus” signature: pericope-alignment doesn’t just interpret, it exposes textual plurality at the same slot. That is exactly what cross-indexed units do in practice. |
| Comm. Matt. 17.36 | Performs clause-scope testing inside a pericope, then marks tri-synoptic wording plus a Lucan increment | “Μετὰ ταῦτα ζητῶ πότερον…”; “ἑξῆς τούτῳ ἔστιν ἰδεῖν”; “ἀνέγραψαν Ματθαῖος καὶ Μᾶρκος καὶ Λουκᾶς”; “ὁ δὲ Λουκᾶς προσέθηκε…” | Clause-scope + “next unit” navigation + “Luke added” is table-reader behavior at micro-scale: it presupposes stable unit edges and stable parallel placement. |
| Comm. Jo. 6.24.131–6.28.147 | Describes evangelists’ epitome/omission/rewriting within the same citation-unit and defends cross-gospel joining as method | “ἐπιτεμνόμενος / ἐπιτομή”; “Μὴ ὑπολάβῃς… ἀκαίρως… εἰ γὰρ καλῶς ἐφηρμόσαμεν…” | This is the theoretical and procedural justification of pericope alignment: if you can “fit” (ἐφαρμόζειν) the join, you can legitimately move across witnesses without being “out of season.” That is basically the logic a pericope apparatus institutionalizes. |
| Comm. Jo. 10.30.191–10.31.202 | Explicitly postpones fuller treatment to the “proper” Gospel locus while still aligning the pericope across witnesses | “εὐκαιρότερον… ὅταν εἰς τὸ κατὰ Ματθαῖον…” (postponement); plus systematic “κατὰ” evangelist alignment | The “defer until we reach Matthew” move presupposes you have a mental index of the same pericope across gospels and know where each belongs in a controlled traversal. |
| Feature (Greek signal) | Count in the strongest set (n = 23 loci used for tallying) | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Explicit unit bracketing by span (e.g., καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως τοῦ…) | 10 | 43% |
| Explicit equivalence terms (e.g., ἰσοδυναμοῦντα, τὸ ὅμοιον, συνᾴδειν) | 4 | 17% |
| Explicit place-based collation / locus language (e.g., κατὰ τοὺς τόπους, κατὰ τὸν τόπον, παραθεὶς τὰ εὐαγγέλια) | 5 | 22% |
| Explicit manuscript/variant awareness tied to the slot (e.g., κατὰ τινα τῶν ἀντιγράφων) | 2 | 9% |
Interpretation of the distribution (still “data summary”): when Origen is most diagnostic, he most often signals pericope control by span-bracketing (καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως…), and his most probative “Ammonius-like” moments are when that bracketing is paired with equivalence (ἰσοδυναμοῦντα) and/or place-based collation (κατὰ τοὺς τόπους), and in the very strongest case it even yields variant visibility at the same slot (κατὰ τινα τῶν ἀντιγράφων + synoptic alignment).
Origen’s strongest passages don’t just show that he knows parallels; they show that he handles parallels with a repeatable mechanism.
The mechanism is visible in a cluster of technical habits that are hard to explain if he is only doing occasional harmonization from memory.
First, he repeatedly treats an episode as something that can be defined by an incipit and then “run it out” to a hard terminus: καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως τοῦ…. That formula is not a decorative “etc.”; it functions as a boundary operator. It presupposes that Origen expects his reader (and himself) to recognize a stable chunk whose internal content is already known as belonging to one unit.
Second, he repeatedly asserts that other gospels contain “the equivalent unit,” using explicit equivalence vocabulary rather than dependence vocabulary: τὰ ἰσοδυναμοῦντα, τὸ ὅμοιον, and the agreement register συνᾴδειν. This is exactly the semantic posture of a pericope table: not “Mark copied Matthew,” but “Mark has the matching section-unit.”
Third, he sometimes makes the synopsis-procedure explicit as instruction: παραθεὶς τὰ εὐαγγέλια ἀλλήλοις κατὰ τοὺς τόπους τούτους καὶ συγκρίνων. This is the smoking-gun procedural sentence because it names the core operation a pericope apparatus exists to support: setting texts side-by-side by place and comparing.
Fourth, in the best case (Comm. Matt. 12.15), the unit-alignment does what apparatus-reading actually does in practice: it produces textual criticism at the same narrative slot. Origen’s κατὰ τινα τῶν ἀντιγράφων plus the synoptic convergence around ἐπετίμησεν / ἐπιτιμήσας is not a generic “parallel citation”; it is variant visibility generated by pericope alignment. That is precisely the kind of phenomenon you get when you read Matthew not only as a continuous book but also as a segmented witness repeatedly checked against parallel segmented witnesses.
Taken together, these strongest loci support a single proposition: Origen is not merely “aware of parallels.” He is repeatedly operating with a workflow that assumes (a) the gospels can be partitioned into stable units, (b) those units have equivalences across gospels, and (c) those equivalences can be checked “by place,” sometimes even surfacing competing readings. That is functionally what an Ammonian-style pericope apparatus is.
Greek signals
καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως τοῦ…
τούτοις τὰ ἰσοδυναμοῦντα καὶ ὁ Μᾶρκος ἀνέγραψεν
ἐτηρήσαμεν… τὴν τάξιν
παραθεὶς τὰ εὐαγγέλια ἀλλήλοις κατὰ τοὺς τόπους τούτους καὶ συγκρίνων
Origen does not merely cite Mark; he defines a Matthean run, identifies the equivalent run in Mark, checks order (τάξις), and instructs place-based collation. This is prose describing the use of a pericope table.
Greek signals
καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως τοῦ… καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἀναστήσεται
τὰ ἰσοδυναμοῦντα
ὁ Λουκᾶς… συνᾴδειν
ἐπεὶ τὸ κατὰ Ματθαῖον πρόκειται νῦν ἐξετάζειν
Matthew, Mark, and Luke are aligned to the same endpoint (prediction terminus). Only after that synopsis-work does Origen narrow scope to Matthew. This presupposes a shared pericope boundary across witnesses.
Greek signals
καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως τοῦ… ἠγανάκτησαν
τὸ δ’ ὅμοιον αὐτῷ καὶ ὁ Μᾶρκος ἀνέγραψε
again καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως τοῦ… ἀγανακτεῖν
Origen matches the whole Zebedee request episode, not verses, by identical termini in Matthew and Mark. That is pericope-level mapping, not thematic harmonization.
Greek signals
Ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ… καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς, ἕως τοῦ…
τὰ ἰσοδυναμοῦντα τούτοις… καὶ παρὰ τῷ Μάρκῳ καὶ τῷ Λουκᾷ
δευτέρα… τρίτη… τετάρτη ἐπερώτησις
Origen defines the Sadducees episode by span, then explains its incipit (“that day”) by adjacent pericopes treated as a numbered run of Q/A units. That macro-organization is exactly what section systems formalize.
Greek signals
κατὰ τινα τῶν ἀντιγράφων
Matthew ἐπετίμησεν aligned with Mark ἐπετίμησεν and Luke ἐπιτιμήσας
A Matthean variant becomes visible because Origen is reading Matthew inside a synoptic pericope alignment. This is the strongest diagnostic: pericope alignment exposes textual plurality at the same narrative slot.
Across these five passages Origen repeatedly performs the same technical operation: he defines a bounded unit with incipit→terminus language (καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως…), asserts equivalence across gospels (ἰσοδυναμοῦν / ὅμοιον / συνᾴδειν), and in the clearest case explicitly instructs place-based collation (παραθεὶς τὰ εὐαγγέλια… κατὰ τοὺς τόπους), even checking order (τάξις). This is not generic harmonization. It is a repeatable workflow that presupposes the gospels are pre-segmented into stable pericopes that can be aligned, compared, and sometimes used to surface manuscript variation at the same slot (κατὰ τινα τῶν ἀντιγράφων). Whether Origen is consulting Ammonius directly or an equivalent synoptic aid, these passages show him thinking and working as a pericope-table reader.
The Evidence for Origen's Use of Ammonius (or Something Like Ammonius's Pericope Apparatus):
Commentary on Matthew [part one][part two][part three][part four][part five][part six][part seven][part eight][part nine][part ten][part eleven][part twelve][part thirteen][part fourteen][part fifteen][part sixteen][part seventeen][part eighteen][part nineteen][part twenty][part twenty one][part twenty two][part twenty three][part twenty four][part twenty five][part twenty six][part twenty seven][part twenty eight][part twenty nine][part thirty][part thirty one][part thirty two][part thirty three][part thirty four][part thirty five][part thirty six][part thirty seven][part thirty eight]
https://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2026/01/origens-use-of-ammonius-in-commentary_38.html
https://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2026/01/origens-use-of-ammonius-in-commentary_86.html
https://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2026/01/origens-use-of-ammonius-in-commentary_74.html
https://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2026/01/origens-use-of-ammonius-in-commentary_67.html
https://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2026/01/origens-use-of-ammonius-in-commentary_42.html
https://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2026/01/origens-use-of-ammonius-in-commentary_20.html
https://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2026/01/origens-use-of-ammonius-in-commentary_37.html
https://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2026/01/origens-use-of-ammonius-in-commentary_14.html
https://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2026/01/origens-use-of-ammonius-in-commentary_45.html
https://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2026/01/origens-use-of-ammonius-in-commentary_92.html
https://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2026/01/origens-use-of-ammonius-in-commentary_62.html
https://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2026/01/origens-use-of-ammonius-in-commentary_15.html
https://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2026/01/origens-use-of-ammonius-in-commentary_5.html
https://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2026/01/origens-use-of-ammonius-in-commentary_52.html
https://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2026/01/origens-use-of-ammonius-in-commentary_2.html
https://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2026/01/origens-use-of-ammonius-in-commentary_3.html
https://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2026/01/origens-use-of-ammonius-in-commentary_27.html
https://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2026/01/origens-use-of-ammonius-in-his_50.html
Commentary on John
https://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2026/01/origens-use-of-ammonius-in-his_22.html
https://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2026/01/origens-use-of-ammonius-in-his.html
https://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2026/01/origens-use-of-ammonius-in-commentary_22.html
https://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2026/01/origens-use-of-ammonius-in-commentary.html
Other Works
https://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2026/01/origens-use-of-ammoniuss-apparatus.html
| Work | Passage | Greek textual indicators of Ammonian-style pericope / unit use | Strength as witness for Ammonius-style unit thinking |
|---|---|---|---|
| Origen, Commentary on Matthew | 10.4 (Matt 13:44, with 13:45–46 grouped) | Origen anchors the discussion on a fixed incipit: «Πάλιν ὁμοία ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν…», treating Matt 13:44 as a discrete saying-unit identifiable by its opening formula. He immediately groups it with “the next two” («ταύτην δὲ καὶ τὰς ἑξῆς αὐτῆς δύο»), indicating conscious block-formation rather than linear exposition. The grouping is justified by a scene-setting marker (“ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ… πρὸς τοὺς μαθητάς”), which functions as a unit-boundary criterion separating these sayings from those spoken to the crowds. Origen then performs rubric analysis: earlier items are explicitly labeled παραβολή, whereas these are not («ἐπὶ δὲ τούτων τὸ αὐτὸ οὐ πεποίηκεν»). This is an argument from editorial tagging consistency, treating the Gospel as a document with stable internal classification habits. He resolves the classification problem by cross-Gospel lexical control, citing Mark’s juxtaposition of ὁμοίωσις and παραβολή («Τίνι ὁμοιώσωμεν… ἢ ἐν τίνι αὐτὴν παραβολῇ θῶμεν;») to demonstrate that the two terms denote distinct though related categories. The ensuing genus/species and homonymy discussion formalizes this as a taxonomy of unit-types, not merely semantic nuance. | High — Although no explicit boundary formula like καὶ ἐγένετο appears, Origen is clearly operating with pericope-level control: isolating an incipit-defined unit, grouping adjacent sayings into a single block, using scene shifts as segmentation markers, and deciding unit identity by rubric practice and cross-Gospel comparison. This is exactly the kind of classificatory reasoning presupposed by Ammonius-style unit thinking. |
| Work | Passage | Greek textual indicators of Ammonian-style pericope / unit use | Strength as witness for Ammonius-style unit thinking |
|---|---|---|---|
| Origen, Commentary on Matthew | 10.16 (Matt 13:53–58: close of the parable block and transition to Nazareth) | Origen opens by quoting and isolating a formal Matthean seam-marker: «Καὶ ἐγένετο, ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὰς παραβολὰς ταύτας, μετῆρεν ἐκεῖθεν». He treats this not devotionally but structurally, asking what textual material the demonstrative «ταύτας» actually delimits. The entire discussion turns on the scope of a closure formula, exactly the sort of phrase that defines a pericope boundary. Origen explicitly frames the problem as documentary: either (a) prior distinctions must be abandoned, or (b) there are two genera of παραβολαί, or (c) παραβολή is homonymous, or (d) the closure applies only to a subset of the preceding material. This is segmentation analysis, not theology. He then constrains the boundary by appeal to another Matthean control statement («ὑμῖν δέδοται γνῶναι… τοῖς δὲ λοιποῖς ἐν παραβολαῖς»), using it to rule out certain boundary-extensions as textually impossible. After fixing the end of the teaching-unit, Origen checks the transition against Mark: «Καὶ ἦλθεν εἰς τὴν πατρίδα αὐτοῦ», confirming that Matthew’s movement-seam corresponds to a Markan seam at the same narrative joint. The Mark citation functions as external confirmation of the pericope break, not as casual harmonization. Even the subsequent discussion of “πατρίδα” (Nazareth vs. Bethlehem vs. Judaea) presupposes a stable, shared narrative slot whose wording choice is meaningful precisely because the unit is fixed. | Very high — This is one of the clearest witnesses to Ammonius-style unit thinking. Origen explicitly treats «καὶ ἐγένετο, ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν…» as a boundary rubric, debates its range, tests competing segmentations, and then verifies the boundary by alignment with Mark. The reasoning only works if Matthew is already read as a text articulated into discrete pericopes whose closures and transitions are analytically significant. |
| Work | Passage | Greek textual indicators of Ammonian-style pericope / unit use | Strength as witness for Ammonius-style unit thinking |
|---|---|---|---|
| Origen, Commentary on Matthew | 10.19 (Nazareth pericope: “not many mighty works” / “could do no mighty work”) | Origen begins with an explicit pericope-local deictic: «ἔστιν ἰδεῖν… ἐκεῖ» and immediately anchors the exegetical problem to a single scene-slot (“there,” i.e., the Nazareth episode). The pericope-engine shows up as a precision alignment of Matthew with Mark at one narrative coordinate: Matthew’s «οὐκ ἐποίησεν ἐκεῖ δυνάμεις πολλὰς διὰ τὴν ἀπιστίαν αὐτῶν» is set directly against Mark’s parallel «οὐκ ἠδύνατο ἐκεῖ οὐδεμίαν ποιῆσαι δύναμιν». Origen’s method is then microscopically lexical: «Πρόσχες… οὐ γὰρ εἶπεν “οὐκ ἤθελεν” ἀλλ’ “οὐκ ἠδύνατο”»—a distinction that only matters if these are treated as strictly corresponding pericope reports rather than loosely similar themes. He reads the Markan “inability” as a pericope-internal constraint (recipient faith as συνεργία / συμπρᾶξις), and he then insists on Mark’s own intra-unit qualifier: «Εἰ μὴ ὀλίγοις ἀρρώστοις… ἐθεράπευσε», which modulates “could do none” into “could do only a limited amount,” yielding a tight reconciliation with Matthew’s “not many.” The comparative network that follows (disciples’ failure: «Διὰ τί οὐκ ἠδυνήθημεν…» / Jesus’ answer «Διὰ τὴν ὀλιγοπιστίαν ὑμῶν»; Peter: «Ὀλιγόπιστε…»; hemorrhaging woman and «δύναμιν ἐξελθοῦσαν ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ») functions as a set of parallel “faith–power” units deployed to explain this unit; they are invoked because they share the same pericope-logic, not because Origen is prooftexting at random. He closes with an overt “calibration” claim about evangelists’ diction: «ἀκριβῶς… ὁ Ματθαῖος καὶ ὁ Μᾶρκος…»—they choose wording to display that δύναμις “can” operate even amid ἀπιστία, but “not to the same extent” as amid πίστις. That is a classic canon-table habit: meaning extracted from micro-variance inside a fixed pericope correspondence. | High — Not a unit-incpit passage (“Ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ…”) but still strongly Ammonian in operation: Origen treats “Nazareth” as a bounded pericope, aligns Matthew/Mark at the exact same narrative slot, and builds his interpretation out of their lexical variance (“οὐκ ἐποίησεν… πολλὰς” vs “οὐκ ἠδύνατο… οὐδεμίαν,” plus Mark’s “εἰ μὴ…” qualifier). This is pericope-comparison logic all the way down. |
| Work | Passage | Greek textual indicators of Ammonian-style pericope / unit use | Strength as witness for Ammonius-style unit thinking |
|---|---|---|---|
| Origen, Commentary on Matthew | 10.20–10.22 (Herod hears of Jesus; “This is John”; narration of John’s arrest; Matt 14:1–2 and the expansion toward 14:3ff.) | Origen keys off a scene-heading / unit-incpit: «Ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ…»—a classic Matthean hinge that in practice signals a new block. He immediately treats it as a three-Gospel parallel unit: «Παρὰ δὲ τῷ Μάρκῳ οὕτως καὶ παρὰ τῷ Λουκᾷ οὕτως», i.e. “this pericope exists in Mark and Luke too,” not as scattered verbal overlap but as a synchronized dossier. He then labels his question explicitly as pericope-local: «Τὸ οὖν ζητούμενον κατὰ τὸν τόπον ἐστίν…» (“what is being investigated in this place/passage”), which is Origen’s most overt marker that he is working inside a bounded unit. His argument proceeds by testing the pericope’s claim (“Jesus = John raised”) against (a) contemporary Jewish δόξαι (Sadducees vs Pharisees), (b) narrative identity-data (Jesus publicly known as “son of the carpenter,” Mary, brothers/sisters vs John son of Zechariah/Elizabeth), and (c) chronology (the ~six-month interval between their births), and he uses those constraints to prune implausible readings (μετενσωμάτωσις) and to prefer a “transfer of δυνάμεις” model, explicitly analogized to the idiom “in spirit and power of Elijah.” Structurally, he also “chains” adjacent pericopes by a numbered sequence: «ἐπεὶ δὲ πρῶτον… δεύτερον… καὶ τρίτον…», linking (1) Jesus withdrawing when John is handed over, (2) John’s prison inquiry (“Are you the coming one?”), (3) Herod’s claim. That is classic unit-tracking: pericope A conditions how pericope B should be read. Finally, he makes a redactional-pericope observation: since “nowhere earlier” had the manner of John’s death been narrated, Matthew now inserts it, Mark parallels, Luke largely omits—a comment that presupposes pericope segmentation and comparison across evangelists. | Very High — This is one of Origen’s clearest “pericope-engine” performances: he treats «Ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ» as a unit-heading, immediately aligns Matthew–Mark–Luke, explicitly frames the exegetical problem “according to the place,” and then builds a pericope-to-pericope scaffold (πρῶτον/δεύτερον/τρίτον) that explains why Matthew expands the unit with John’s arrest/death narrative. It’s strong evidence for a canon-table habit of reading in bounded, cross-Gospel units even though no Ammonian number is cited. |
| Work | Passage | Greek textual indicators of Ammonian-style pericope / unit use | Strength as witness for Ammonius-style unit thinking |
|---|---|---|---|
| Origen, Commentary on Matthew | 11.2–11.4 (Feeding of the Five Thousand; Matt 14:16–21, with the bridge to 14:22) | Origen is operating with a bounded narrative block and repeatedly treats it as a retrievable “unit” rather than a continuous-run text. The unit is anchored by pericope-trigger lines treated as governing incipits: «Δότε αὐτοῖς ὑμεῖς φαγεῖν» and the inventory response «οὐκ ἔχομεν ὧδε εἰ μὴ πέντε ἄρτους καὶ δύο ἰχθύας». He then narrates the internal “mechanics” as a fixed pericope-sequence (λάβων → ἀναβλέψας → ηὐλόγησε → κλάσας → ἔδωκε), i.e. he is reading the pericope by stable action-chain rather than by loose allusion. Most diagnostic is the explicit four-Gospel collation inside one story: «παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ καὶ τῷ Μάρκῳ καὶ τῷ Λουκᾷ… ὁ δὲ Ἰωάννης μόνος…» and the way he extracts micro-variants as interpretive levers (John alone: «κριθίνους»; John’s framing: not “we have,” but «ἔστι παιδάριον ὧδε ὃς ἔχει…»). He then aligns the reclining-order detail across parallels as if reading against a harmonized dossier: Mark’s «συμπόσια συμπόσια… πρασιαὶ πρασιαὶ… ἀνὰ ἑκατὸν καὶ πεντήκοντα» vs Luke’s «κλισίας ὡσεὶ ἀνὰ πεντήκοντα», explaining why those are there (τάγματα/graded feeding), while Matthew supplies the simpler base narrative (recline “ἐπὶ τοῦ χόρτου”). The end of the unit is also treated as symbolically “counted” and thus structurally integral (δώδεκα κόφινοι ↔ δώδεκα φυλαί), another sign Origen is reading the pericope as a designed whole. There is no explicit Matthean “other recension” note here (no “κατὰ τινὰ τῶν ἀντιγράφων”), so the strongest “Ammonius shows a different Matthew than my copy” signature is absent; instead the signature is synoptic collation within a single pericope. | High (unit-thinking), Medium-High (synoptic-table habit) — This passage is one of Origen’s clearest demonstrations of pericope-as-indexed-block reading: he treats the Feeding as a discrete unit with an internal action-chain, then explicitly collates Matthew/Mark/Luke/John and interprets their small differences as meaningful (barley; “boy has” vs “we have”; hundreds/fifties ordering). It supports Ammonius-style unit thinking strongly, but it does not by itself show the “Ammonius/source has a different Matthew reading than Origen’s recension” phenomenon that makes 12.15 especially probative. |
| Work | Passage | Greek textual indicators of Ammonian-style pericope / unit use | Strength as witness for Ammonius-style unit thinking |
|---|---|---|---|
| Origen, Commentary on Matthew | 11.5–11.7 (Matt 14:22–36; esp. 14:22 “εὐθέως ἠνάγκασεν…”, walking on sea + Gennesaret) | Origen treats the narrative as a single articulated unit whose internal “joints” are repeatedly re-indexed by the same incipit-skeleton: «εὐθέως ἠνάγκασεν… ἐμβῆναι εἰς τὸ πλοῖον… εἰς τὸ πέραν». He explicitly flags the unit-logic as sequential (“εὐθέως μετὰ τὸ τραφῆναι…”) and reads the pericope as a graduated crossing (crowds below → disciples in the boat → “μέσον τῆς θαλάσσης” → “τετάρτη φυλακή” → Jesus aboard → “διαπεράσαντες ἦλθον”). The Mark citation is introduced as a parallel-column micro-variant rather than a mere prooftext: «ὀλίγον ἐναλλάξας τὴν λέξιν ἀνέγραψε καὶ ὁ Μᾶρκος…» and he isolates Mark’s μικρὰ παραλλαγή with explicit comparative language (“ὀλίγη παραλλαγή”, “τι πλεῖον ἐμφαίνοντος”, “διὰ τῆς τοῦ ἄρθρου προσθήκης”). He exploits Mark’s wording differences in a canon-table way: Mark’s «τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ» vs Matthew’s bare «τοὺς μαθητάς» becomes exegetically meaningful; Mark’s added destination («εἰς Βηθσαϊδά») is treated as part of the comparative dossier. There is no claim of a different Matthean recension here (no “τινὰ τῶν ἀντιγράφων” for Matthew), but there is overt synoptic apparatus behavior: compare, name the variation, and interpret the “extra” as semantically weighty. | High (for unit-thinking), Medium-High (for synoptic-table use) — this is one of Origen’s clearest displays of pericope-engine reading: he works at the level of an indexed narrative block, tracks internal seams (“μετὰ τὸ τραφῆναι…”, “μέσον…”, “τετάρτη φυλακή”, “ἀναβάντος… ἐκόπασεν…”, “διαπεράσαντες…”), and then handles Mark not as ornament but as a controlled parallel witness with analysable micro-variation (“ὀλίγη παραλλαγή”). It lacks the decisive “Ammonius shows me a different Matthew reading than my own recension” feature found in 12.15, but it still looks strongly like columnar consultation of parallels at a pericope boundary. |
| Work | Passage | Greek textual indicators of Ammonian-style pericope / unit use | Strength as witness for Ammonius-style unit thinking |
|---|---|---|---|
| Origen, Commentary on Matthew | 11.12 (Matt 15:10–20) | Origen opens with a clear incipit + unit span formula: «Καὶ προσκαλεσάμενος τὸν ὄχλον… καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς (15, 10–20)», treating Matt 15:10–20 as a single bounded pericope rather than a sequence of verses. The phrase καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς functions as shorthand for an indexed unit whose internal contents are presupposed. Within this established unit, Origen introduces Mark explicitly as a parallel control: «ἐν τῷ κατὰ τὸν Μᾶρκον… “καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα”». The Markan phrase is not used to resolve a textual variant in Matthew, but to supply an interpretive gloss for the Matthean unit as a whole. No alternative Matthean readings are noted, and Mark does not expose Matthean plurality; instead, Mark is used canonically to fix the meaning and scope of the pericope (“not what enters, but what exits”). | Moderate — this passage shows pericope-level thinking (incipit + span, unit-based exegesis, parallel-Gospel control), consistent with Ammonian-style practice, but not diagnostic of textual plurality. Unlike 12.15, Mark does not reveal a different Matthean reading; he functions as an interpretive headnote for a stable unit rather than as a control for variant alignment. |
| Work | Passage | Greek textual indicators of Ammonian-style pericope / unit use | Strength as witness for Ammonius-style unit thinking |
|---|---|---|---|
| Origen, Commentary on Matthew | 12.12 (Matt 16:18 context) | Origen cites Luke explicitly (“ὡς ἐν τῷ κατὰ Λουκᾶν εἴρηται”) and then Matthew explicitly (“τὸ ἐν τῷ κατὰ Ματθαῖον γεγραμμένον”), using both as thematic parallels for the image of the narrow gate. There is no citation of Mark as a parallel control, no triangulation of Matthew–Mark–Luke as witnesses to a single narrative unit, and no discussion of variant readings in Matthew. The Gospel material is deployed illustratively and morally, not synchronically. The logic of the argument does not depend on pericope alignment, demonstratives, or wording correspondence across Gospels. | Very weak / negligible — this passage shows no Ammonian-style unit thinking. Origen is not recognizing an alternative Matthean reading, not stabilizing Matthew by reference to Mark, and not working at a synoptic seam. The cross-Gospel citations are ordinary prooftexting, not evidence of consultation of an Ammonian or proto-Ammonian pericope apparatus. |
