Ambrosiaster’s Dubia: Is there a translation of fragments of a commentary on Matthew?

I received an email this afternoon on a very obscure text, which led me to do a little bibliographical work.

I wonder if you might know whether anyone has published an English translation of the short fragment from a Latin Commentary on Matthew (on 24.19-44) published independently by Mercati (G. Mercati, Varia sacra: “Anonymi Chiliastae in Matthaeum 24 fragmenta”, (Studi e Testi 11), Roma 1903, 3-45) and Turner (C. H. Turner, “An Exegetical Fragment of the Third Century,” JTS 5 (1904) 218-241) and attributed variously to Victorinus (Turner) and Ambrosiaster (Souter).

This text is CPL 186, I find. I don’t know of any English translation, but of course one might exist somewhere. An Italian edition and translation by A. Pollastri appeared in 2014 (book dealer site here), available for a trim 40 euros:

Ambrosiaster, Frammenti esegetici su Matteo. Il Vangelo di Matteo (Mt 24,20-42). Le tre misure (Mt 13,33). L’apostolo Pietro (Mt 26,51-53-72-75), introduzione, testo, traduzione e commento a cura di A. Pollastri, (Biblioteca Patristica, 50) Bologna 2014.

An upcoming volume of uncertain contents from Brill Brepols is this (via here), which I thought contained Pollastri’s text, but which instead I learn contains information on the manuscripts and text tradition:

Ambrosiaster, Dubia, Commentarius in Matthaeum (CPL 186), De tribus mensuris (CPL 187), De Petro (CPL 188), cur. A. Pollastri, dans: E. Colombi, et al. (éds.), Traditio Patrum: Scriptores Italiae, Turnhout (à paraître).

It’s August.  Go and do summer things!

 

Share

4 thoughts on “Ambrosiaster’s Dubia: Is there a translation of fragments of a commentary on Matthew?

  1. Dear Roger,
    Brepols’ “Traditio Patrum” (nicknamed TraPat; http://www.brepols.net/Pages/BrowseBySeries.aspx?TreeSeries=Trapat) does not hold texts themselves; it’s a summary of the tradition of each and every preserved Late Antique Christian text, something like a Reynold’s “Texts and Transmission” for patristic literature. But it’s a work in progress and volumes as important as the one for Italy are hard to put up. Your reference I understand as Pollastri being responsible for the chapter about these works’ tradition, which makes sense, but the works themselves will not be edited there.
    Yours,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *