Ipsius enim gratia duplicata est mna

[KsSp]

Hello.
There are 7 confusing sentences from Origen's Homilies on Luke left, and if the rules of the forum allow it, there will be 4 questions today and 3 tomorrow, if you don't mind. This way, the threads about Origen won't look that omnipresent
So here is a sentence from Homily 39.
'Ipsius enim gratia duplicata est mna, et dignis quibusque plus datum est quam sperabant.'
And here is an attempt to translate it:
'As the grace itself is a double mina, which is a greater gift for the worthy than they hoped for.'
The context is the following: Origen is talking about the parable of the minas, and it seems like he is saying that the 'extra' mina that is given to the one who multiplied the mina that had been given to him is 'an even greater gift' for him, because, being truly worthy of it, he did not hope for it. But is it really what the Latin text says?
Thank you.

 

[Scholiast]

saluete amici!

First, Ipsius is genitive, and must refer to the Lord. Secondly, are KsSp sure about the reading of dignis? I think it ought to be digna, in apposition to mna. Perhaps they could double-check this.

My suggestion: 'For His grace is a doubled mina, and [if my supposition about digna is right] worthy/deserving for those to whom more has been granted than they hoped for'.

Σ

 

[KsSp]

Hello, Scholiast! In Sources Chr., it is 'dignis', and in PG it is 'dignus'. We don't have 'digna' in either.

 

[Scholiast]

saluete de nouo KsSp!

In that case, I must revise my proposed version. I think it must indeed be dignis, and then mean '...and to all those [quibusque] deserving, more has been given than they were hoping for'.

Does this make better sense in the context?

Σ

 

[bearded]

Hello Scholiast
I think that your interpretation in #4 is quite correct. However, the function of ''quibusque'' appears obscure to me. On the one hand, I find it is a superfluous word (et dignis plus datum est quam sperabant would work without it), and on the other hand it is a relative pronoun, and the double conjunction et…-que looks strange. Is it possible that some words are missing after 'quibusque', like ''more than they were hoping for has been given to the ''worthy'' ones and to those who…(+missing words)''?
Many thanks in advance for letting me/us know your valuable opinion.

 

[Scholiast]

saluete omnes!

I am construing quibusque as dat. plur. of quisque, so 'to each (every) deserving person(s)'. That obviates the et...-que problem.

Σ

 

[bearded]

I am construing quibusque as dat. plur. of quisque

Oh yes, thank you: I should have thought of that.

 

[KsSp]

Thank you!