Here I will note corrections, notes, and emendations to my publications discovered by myself or others.

Greek Catenae and the Western Order of the Gospels (NovT, 2022)

P. 117, n. 9 and p. 125–126: GA 055 was erroneously described as having “the complete text of Mark” (117, n.9) in contrast to Matthew, John, and Luke which are abridged. In fact, the text of Mark in GA 055 is also abridged. See Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament, 2nd ed., trans. by Erroll F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989): “Commentary with incomplete text, does not strictly belong in uncial list” (p. 119). The error was repeated on p. 125–126 as part of the evidence that GA 055’s Vorlagen did not include Mark. My error about the “full biblical lemmata for Mark only” should be disregarded. I believe the argument still stands from the other strands of evidence provided about GA 055 and the relationship between the catenae on the other three Gospels. (Thanks to Hugh Houghton for bringing this to my attention.)

P. 119–120: “What is more, Wallace claimed that, like GA 033 and 055, GA 1411 should in fact have been classified as a majuscule manuscript because of the script used for the biblical lemmata—if it qualified as a New Testament manuscript at all.” While I share Wallace’s assertion that the classification of GA 1411 as a minuscule Greek New Testament manuscript is tenuous, I made no comment about his claim that GA 1411 should be classified as a majuscule. The text would be better described as semi-majuscule, and even this is inconsistent in the biblical lemmata. If it belongs in the Liste, I prefer it remain with the minuscules. See the transcription of Luke 1 in David C. Smith’s master’s thesis which highlights which letters are in majuscule or minuscule script or examine CSNTM’s images of GA 1411 here: David C. Smith, “A Study of the Text and Paratext of the Catena on Luke in GA 1411” (ThM, Dallas Theological Seminary, 2019).

P. 123, 125: Twice, C125.1 is given as the CPG reference for a catena on the Gospel of Matthew which should read C110.1. These instances are, page 123: “the earliest catenae on Matthew (C125.1), John (C140.1), and Luke (C130). Then again on page 125: “According to Reuss, one-third of the scholia on Mark derive from the catenae on the other gospels, especially the comments from Chrysostom included in C125.1

P. 128: “Among the eighty-seven multiple-gospel codices with types C131–137, seventy-five are copies of the four gospels in the traditional order” (emphasis added). The numbers are incorrect; replace “eighty-seven” with ninety-four and “seventy-five” with eighty-two. The revised numbers accurately sum the results in Table 4 which accurately reflect the data according to Parpulov’s Catena Catalogue Database at the time of writing.