In this passage taken from the apocryphal correspondence between Seneca and Saint Paul (Letter XII):
Grassator iste, quisquis est, cui voluptas carnificina est et mendacium velamentum, tempori suo destinatus est. Ut optimus quisque unum pro multis donatum est caput, ita et hic devotus pro omnibus igni cremabitur.
there is a phrase that is not clear to me:
Ut optimus quisque unum pro multis donatum est caput.
At the beginning, there is a nominative, optimus quisque, but subsequently another one is found, caput, which agrees in gender and number with the perfect passive, donatum est.
In my opinion, this is a syntactic inconsistency, an anacoluthon, to be attributed on the one hand to the epistolary style, and on the other hand to the period in which the forgery was probably composed by an anonymous writer (late Latin period). Is this correct?