There’s another article of interest in the latest ZAC, arguing that a number of argumenta on Pauline letters of John Chrysostom have been so far miss-attributed: Agnès Lorrain, “Des prologues bibliques d’origine chrysostomienne : Les Arguments attribués à Théodoret et à Théophylacte sur les épîtres pauliniennes,” ZAC/JAC 19/3 (2015) 481-501.
The abstract: “This study shows that the argumenta to the Pauline letters attributed to Theodoret in the catena of Oecumenius are without doubt summaries of John Chrysostom’s argumenta to these letters, and that they relate to those handed down in the catena of Theophylact. First, we will draw up a list of testimonies of the summaries attributed to Theodoret-manuscripts of catenae and Pauline epistles-and state the hypothesis of a link with the transmission of Oecumenius’ catena. After proving the dependence of John Chrysostom and the link with Theophylact, we will bring forward several hypotheses about the precise relations between the three series of argumenta. We will underline the importance of these texts as testimonies of the transmission and reception of John Chrysostom’s text, as well as of the technique of summary in Late Antiquity, and we will indicate some directions for further research.”