1. Cambridge, Trinity College B. 3. 9 (88): HG 162.
2. London, Lambeth Palace Library 414: HG 516 (excerpts).

1. Expos.Luc.II.292: ANON.Vit.Cuthb.VII.122.1-2.
2. Expos.Luc.II.292: STEPH.HRYP.Vit.Wilfr.XIX.
3. BEDA.Comm.Luc.: see below.
4. BEDA.Comm.Marc.: see below.
5. BEDA.Hom.: see below.
6. Expos.Luc. I.396-403: BEDA.Comm.epist.cath.1Ioan.IV.xii.142-48.
7. Expos.Luc. III.156-57: ALCVIN.Adu.Elipand.280.45-48.
8. Expos.Luc. IV.193-98: HomS 10 (BlHom 3; B3.2.10): see below.
9. ?Expos.Luc.X.107-9: Dream (A2.5).

This work, Ambrose's only New Testament commentary, circulated in Anglo-Saxon England mainly in the form of extracts, including four concerning the Virgin Mary (cf. Clayton 1990 p 212) and infancy of Christ usually found in manuscripts of the HOMILIARY OF PAUL THE DEACON (see HOMILIARIES; Smetana 1978 p 85): Pars I, 39 (Expos.Luc.II.743-76); I, 66 (Expos.Luc.II.777-819); II, 77 (Expos.Luc.II.283-409); and II, 115 (Expos.Luc.VII.451-677). The second of these extracts also occurs in London, BL Cotton Nero E. i, pt 1 [HG 344], part of the COTTON-CORPUS LEGENDARY (see Jackson and Lapidge 1996 p 136 and LEGENDARIES. Deshman 1995 (p 55) suggests that this particular extract "might have been a factor in the cyclic symbolism of the illustrations of . . . infancy feasts in both the Drogo Sacramentary and the Benedictional [of Æthelwold]."

For the Salisbury manuscript, see Webber 1992 (p 154). For the extracts in the Lambeth Palace manuscript, part of a florilegium on Genesis, see James and Jenkins 1930-32 (4.571 and 573-74).

STEPHEN OF RIPON (VITA WILFRIDI ) and the anonymous author of the VITA CUTHBERTI (ed Colgrave 1940; see ACTA SANCTORUM) both adapt Ambrose's phrase, nescit tarda molimina sancti spiritus gratia, which Stephen applies to King Ecgfrith (see Colgrave 1940 p 333).

We learn from Acca's letter within the prologue to BEDE's COMMENTARIUS IN LUCAM (CCSL 120.5.5-6) that Bede had hesitated to write a commentary on Luke because of the existence of Ambrose's, and Bede did make extensive use of Ambrose's commentary when he wrote his commentary (for a list of parallels, see CCSL 120.671). Bede also drew on Ambrose's commentary in his EXPOSITIO IN MARCUM (see CCSL 120.671-72), HOMILIA (see CCSL 122.401), and COMMENTARIUS IN EPISTOLAS SEPTEM CATHOLICAS (see CCSL 121.314).

In his ADVERSUS ELIPANDUM ALCUIN cites from Ambrose (by way of PAULINUS OF AQUILEIA, ADVERSUS FELICEM III.xxi.17-19, CCCM 95) to prove that Christ is the true son of God, but (as noted by Frobenius, whose edition is reprinted in PL) he mistakenly attributes to Ambrose the introductory words of Paulinus as well. Frobenius also cites Ambrose in the notes to his edition of of Alcuin's IN IOHANNIS EVANGELIUM, but the source for the passage in question is actually AUGUSTINE, DE DIVERSIS QUAESTIONIBUS (information from Frederick M. Biggs).

C. Wright 1988 (pp 132-33) cites Expos.Luc.XV.xiv as the ultimate source of an enumeration of the three reasons Christ went into the desert in Blickling Homily III (EETS OS 58, 63, and 73.29.18-22). Fleming 1966 (p 53) cites a passage from Expos.Luc.X as a source for the motif in The Dream of the Rood of the Crucifixion as an "athletic contest." See also Cassidy and Ringler 1971 (p 310 note 1); the passage is translated in Allen and Calder 1976 (pp 57-58).

The commentary is also edited in SChr 45 and 52.