Ambrosiaster on the Old Latin Version

The following translation from Ambrosiaster’s Commentary on Romans (5:14) is a work in progress. The approach is non-literal yet with the intent to leave out nothing in the Latin text. The translation differs somewhat from G. L. Bray’s edition (Ambrosiaster Commentaries on Romans and 1–2 Corinthians [2009] 43) and the partial translations in A. Cain (Letters of Jerome [2009] 52) and S. Lunn-Rockliffe (Ambrosiaster’s Political Theology [2007] 22-23). Of course, I would appreciate any suggestions for improvements.

Vogels, ed. (CSEL 81)
4e. et tamen sic praescribere nobis volunt de Graecis codicibus, quasi non ipsi ab invicem discrepent, quod facit studium contentionis, quia enim propria quis auctoritate uti non potest ad victoriam, verba legis adulterat, ut sensum suum quasi verbis legis adserat, ut non ratio, sed auctoritas praescribere videatur, constat autem quosdam Latinos porro olim de veteribus Graecis translatos codicibus, 5. [quos incorruptos simplicitas temporum servavit et probat,] postquam autem a concordia animis dissidentibus et hereticis perturbantibus torqueri quaestiones coeperunt, multa inmutata sunt ad sensum humanum, ut hoc contineretur in litteris, quod homini videretur, unde etiam ipsi Graeci diversos codices habent. 5a.hoc autem verum arbitror, quando et ratio et historia et auctoritas conservatur, nam hodie quae in Latinis reprehenduntur codicibus, sic inveniuntur a veteribus posita, Tertulliano et Victorino et Cypriano … Yet this is what they want to prescribe for us on the basis of the Greek codices, as though these same codices did not have discrepancies among themselves, which provoke a spirit of controversy, because those who are unable to prevail on their own authority change the letter of the law, so to speak, to claim their own meaning seemingly by the letter of the law, so that, not reason, but the authority of the text would seem to prescribe what they want. But it is well-known that very long ago native Latin speakers translated the text we now have from ancient Greek codices, [which the innocence of former times has safeguarded and now certifies to us without corruption.] But after disputes were raised by troublesome schismatics and heretics to turn us away from unity, many passages were altered to a human sense so that what seemed good to people would be preserved in the letter of the text, with the result that even the Greeks themselves have divergent codices. I consider this to be the true text, when reason, history, and authority are all preserved. For the text retained today in the Latin codices is found the same in the ancients, Tertullian, Victorinus, and Cyprian.

Ambrosiaster’s (presumably) earlier version of the commentary has slightly different wording between the brackets:

Vogels, ed. (CSEL 81)
5.respondentes ad haec non tacemus, quia codices nostri ex Graecis veteribus originem habent, quos incorruptos simplicitas temporum probat Let us not keep silent responding to the latter, because our codices take their origin from ancient Greek copies, which the innocence of former times certifies to us without corruption.

What do you think?