Establishing for certain that the gospel (i.e. the original 'harmony' of Justin, Tatian, Marcion etc) began on Yom Kippur:
Charles Perrot, who knows very well about the uncertainties of the triennial cycle in the first century CE, and who also knows how much guesswork is involved in Mann's haftarot, mentions also a possible relationship between Isa 61,2 and Gen 35,9. He has found an additional argument in the long elaboration in Tg. Neof. Gen 35,9 (8). This enlargement, which is not uncommon at the beginning of a new seder, mentions the circumcision of Abraham that can be dated by Jewish tradition on the 10th of Tishri, i.e. Yom Kippur. Moreover, the insertion of Isa 58,6 in Luke 4,18 could have been derived from the reading of Yom Kippur (9). Given the fact that a year of Jubilee was proclaimed on Yom Kippur, Perrot comes to the conclusion that Tishri is the most probable month for Luke 4, and Yom Kippur the most plausible day in that month. [Monshouwer, D., “The Reading of the Prophet in the Synagogue at Nazareth,” Biblica 72 (1991) p. 91]
Year of Jubilee
For what programme did Luke need this interpretation of Isaiah 61? He needed the prophet in the first place to make the combination of the year of Jubilee and Pesach. The gospel focusses on the festival in the springtime because Scripture is fulfilled in the Messiah who died and rose again at Passover. The theme of the Jubilee belongs to the Autumn, for the year of Jubilee is proclaimed on the tenth of Tishri, Yom Kippur. There are still more motifs from the Day of Atonement that are transposed to Pesach and have made Good Friday what it is in the New Testament and until the present day. Luke uses Isa 61,1 f. to say that the appearance of Jesus the Messiah, which he had to let start immediately after Pesach, was as such the beginning of a new era and could be described in the terms of the year of Jubilee. Maybe this reshuffling of motifs was favoured by the fact that the year of Jubilee after 70 could no longer be proclaimed properly without the temple. In the year 76/77 all synagogues faced the problem of how to start a new period of fifty years with no high priest in Jerusalem to send messengers (21).
(21) A. STROBEL, “Die Ausrufung des Jobeljahres in der Nazarethpredigt Jesu”, Jesus in Nazareth (ed. W. ELTESTER) (Berlin 1972) 38-50; GOULDER, Luke, 308, reasons in a more historical way; way; he thinks that Luke in the year 76/77 is reminded of 26/27 and 'took Jesus' preaching to have coincided with the previous Jubilee'. The Mishnah reflects in a way the same problem as its states, that on the first day of a new year the shophar may be blown only in towns which have a council (m.RHSh 4.1) [ibid p. 94]
Author's conclusions:
Let us take involvement of the triennial cycle for granted and consider the effects of Luke's procedure. (i) He relocates the proclamation of the Jubilee from Yom Kippur to the seven weeks between Pesach and Shabuoth. The fiftieth year is declared in the period of the fifty days. The historical fact that the Temple did not exist any more in 76/77, when a year of Jubilee had to be proclaimed, provided the evangelist with the occasion. The necessity for this procedure was the wish to use the Jubilee as a programme at the beginning of Jesus' public appearance. Luke found a text from the prophet Isaiah, that effortlessly recalls the Jubilee, inserted for the sake of clarity a few words from the pericope that functioned at Yom Kippur, and transferred the Jubilee to the time of Pesach, eschatologising its meaning. The Jubilee is no longer an incident occurring only every fifty years, but the model of the End Time, the time of the Messiah, which is now. 'Today' (Luke 4,21) is the Katpog (Luke 4,13) (29), beginning with the sermon in the synagogue at Nazareth and completed at the end of the gospel which again is a new beginning. [https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&h ... +gospel%22]
Of course Monshouwer doesn't have the benefit of Boid's translation of the Samaritan tradition regarding the Jubilees which makes explicit that the Jubilee properly began on Yom Kippur with the announcement of the Year of Favor, not merely on the first of the first in the Jubilee year.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
In the above survey names of months are filled in. Gn does not mention them, but says only 'the first' or 'the seventh'. There can be no doubt that in the Torah the first month is always Nisan.70 The order of the months in the Torah is determined by Pesach, which always comes first in the chapters with festival-regulations (Lv 23; Nm 28f.; Dt 16). So the month of Abib (Dt 16,1) can be no other than Nisan. Ex 23,16 and Lv 34,22 speak of a 'new year' in Tishri. That is not yet Rosh Hashanah, that was unknown to the redactors of the Torah, but Yom Kippur on which day a jubilee-year should be proclaimed (Lv 25,9). [Bijdragen tijdschrift voor filosofie en theologie, Part 51 p. 74]
Festivals of the Seventh Month
The significance of the association of the jubilee with the Day of Atonement (Purgation) on the tenth day of the seventh month should not go unnoticed (Lev 25:9). The first and seventh months, which marked the equinoxes, were festival months in most cultures throughout the ancient Near East:
This concept of a six-month equinox year was a major factor in the establishment of the cultic calendar throughout the Near East. In many locations there were parallel major festivals in the first and seventh month — suggesting that rather than considering one of these festivals as marking major festivals in the first and seventh month—suggesting that rather than considering one of these festivals as marking the beginning and the other the half-way point of the year, the ancients viewed each as a beginning, the onset of this 6–month equinox year. . . .40 The ancient Hebrews recognized the significance of this cycle, referring to the equinoxes, the times when the year turns, as teqûfat ha““ànà (Exodus 34:22) ... (the autumnal equinox) ... and as l'shubat hashshana (2 Samuel 11:1) ... (the vernal equinox). The Israelite incorporation of this six-month cycle into its ritual can further be detected in the duration and timing of the festival of the first month, the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and the festival of the seventh month, the Feast of Ingathering.41
Although there was a balance between the first and seventh month, often the latter overshadowed the former in significance.42 Of some significance for yom kippur and the jubilee is the akîtu festival. This festival, celebrated in the first and seventh months, was widespread throughout Mesopotamia from the mid-third millennium B.C.E. through Hellenistic times, and concerned the ritual re-entry of the patron deity into his or her city.43 The rituals included the purification/purgation of the temple the enthronement of the deity, and ceremonial acts of “justice” by which the deity asserted his authority over the city. In at least some cities, the high priest dragged the king before the deity, where he was made to prostrate himself and give account for his administration of affairs both of the cult and of social justice.44
The nature of the akîtu festival is yet another indication that in ancient Near Eastern societies there was not a divorce between cult and (social) ethics.45 It is suggested therefore that there is nothing arbitrary about the proclamation of the jubilee on yom kippur; on the contrary, there may be the most intimate conceptual relationship between the purgation of the temple and the restoration of social justice in Israel. While we do not have any explicit evidence thatyom kippur was related to an enthronement of YHWH, it may be argued that yom kippur does suggest some sort of re-assertion or renewal of YHWH's presence in the tabernacle/temple, and therefore also his rule as King over Israel. The presence of uncleanness in the tabernacle/temple was understood to prevent or impede YHWH from inhabiting it;47 thus, the necessity of periodic purgations and—quintessentially—yom kippur. If therefore yom kippur removes that which drives YHWH away from the sanctuary and thus his people, there must have existed a sense that following yom kippur, the presence of YHWH among his people had been renewed in a particular way. Inasmuch as the renewal or re- assertion of a (divine or human) king's rule was associated with the re-establishment of “freedom” (andurarum) and “social justice” (misharum) for the populace throughout the ancient Near East, yom kippur offered an attractive occasion in the cultic calendar of Israel for the proclamation of the jubilee. [Bergsma, The Jubilee from Leviticus to Qumran p. 31 - 32]
Consider for a moment the implications of Ecclesiastes's interpreting of 'saida' as demons and Bethsaida then as the Jewish temple. The heretical gospel clearly is reflected in the Nag Hammadi text the Testimony of Truth's bleak assessment of Solomon's activities establishing demons in waterpots here. The charge is echoed in other Jewish and Christian texts. Now consider the Gospel of John's remembrance of Jesus at the temple at the very start:
When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” 17 His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.” The Jews then responded to him, “What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?” Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.
To be certain the festival is explicitly identified as 'Passover' in John 2.23 but remember also that the Alogoi rejected the previous miracle (Cana) and objected to other details associated with the number of years being represented in the canonical text.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
As the reader can tell, I strongly suspect that the ending of the gospel coincided with Yom Kippur, the traditional announcement of the 'year of favor.' But I am equally certain that Luke 4:14 - 18 represents a transformation of an even more explicit reference in an earlier heretical gospel. Let us acknowledge that Luke's is the only reference to the 'year of favor' (outside of the Diatessaron). Clement of Alexandria stands very close to Tatian's text and notes - in one section of the Stromata:
And our Lord was born in the twenty-eighth year, when first the census was ordered to be taken in the reign of Augustus. And to prove that this is true, it is written in the Gospel by Luke as follows: "And in the fifteenth year, in the reign of Tiberius Caesar, the word of the Lord came to John, the son of Zacharias." And again in the same book: "And Jesus was coming to His baptism, being about thirty years old," and so on. And that it was necessary for Him to preach only a year, this also is written: "He hath sent Me to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord." This both the prophet spake, and the Gospel.(Stromata 1:21)
The bottom line here is that even though the citations start from Luke, the final citation has Clement just states 'this also is written' Jesus said:
"He hath sent Me to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord."
«ἐνιαυτὸν δεκτὸν κυρίου κηρῦξαι ἀπέστειλέν με.»
This is certainly not from our canonical Luke. It does not follow from what is portrayed in Luke 4:16 - 18. It is not a reading from Isaiah chapter 61. It is Jesus declaring that he was sent to announce that the coming Jubilee year was the fulfillment of messianic prophesy. The most plausible explanation of this variant reading is that it comes from a 'secret gospel' (note Clement does not explain its origin).
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias wrote:
..............................................................
Notice the emphasis on a 'linen cloth.' This is very important in Origen, the student of Clement and his treatment of the material. As Klingbell notes:
We will examine Homily 9 which deals predominantly with the Day of Atonement ritual (Lev 16). Origen's point of departure is his understanding of the priesthood of all believers, and in order to support this he quotes 1 Pet 2:9. As already seen in his treatment of the tabernacle account in Exodus, Origen quotes heavily from the Epistle to the Hebrews, suggesting that the Day of Atonement ritual needs to be understood as a “form” and “copy” of the true high priest Jesus Christ. This Christological interpretation is based on manifold evidence from the Christian Bible and helps to understand his lack of enthusiasm for reading ritual texts from the Hebrew Bible on their own terms. Origen, having established the general priesthood of all believers, applies most of the clothing items mentioned in Lev 16:4115 in a spiritual sense either to Christ as the high priest or to his present-day Christians:
I am going to go a little beyond Klingbell's original citation here because I am certain that even Andrew Criddle will finally see that Origen is citing or demonstrating his knowledge of Secret Mark. Here is a fuller sense in the Homilies on Leviticus:
“A consecrated linen tunic will be put on.” (Lev 16: Think of flax thread that comes from the earth. Imagine that the flax thread becomes a sanctified linen tunic that Christ, the true high priest, puts on when he takes up the nature of an earthly body. Remember he takes up the nature of an earthly body. Remember that it is said about the body that“it is earth and it will go into the earth.” Therefore, my Lord and Savior, wanting to resurrect that which had gone into the earth, took an earthly body that he might carry it raised up from the earth to heaven. And the assertion in the Law that the high priest is clothed "with a linen tunic" contains a a figure of this mystery. But that it added "sanctified" must not be heard as superfluous. For "the tunic" that was the flesh of Christ was "sanctified," for it was not conceived from the seed of man but begotten of the Holy Spirit. (4) "And linen breeches should be on his body" ... [extended discussion of how the privates are disgusting] ... The “breeches” are a garment with which the private parts of the body are usually covered and constrained. Therefore, if you perceive that our Savior had indeed taken a body and, placed in this body, did human deeds, that is, eating drinking and other similar things but did not do that deed alone which pertains to the private parts of the body, and did not give his flesh either in marriage or in the procreation of sons, you will discover in what sense he had sanctified "linen breeches."
Origen not only interprets the Leviticus ritual in terms of a 'resurrection' of one 'gone into the earth' but later connects this with the Rich Man and Lazarus narrative.
There is no reasonable explanation for why Origen should connect Leviticus 16 with the 'resurrection' of the youth in Secret Mark who was buried in a tomb in the earth. An Armenian fragment describes the parallel story of Lazarus in the Gospel of John in very similar terms "Lazarus lies dead in a tomb, dead in the womb of the earth."
I'll just note that Origen is referring to the parable in Luke about Lazarus. Origen does not link this to the raising of Lazarus as in John.
Secret Alias wrote:As the reader can tell, I strongly suspect that the ending of the gospel coincided with Yom Kippur, the traditional announcement of the 'year of favor.' But I am equally certain that Luke 4:14 - 18 represents a transformation of an even more explicit reference in an earlier heretical gospel. Let us acknowledge that Luke's is the only reference to the 'year of favor' (outside of the Diatessaron). Clement of Alexandria stands very close to Tatian's text and notes - in one section of the Stromata:
And our Lord was born in the twenty-eighth year, when first the census was ordered to be taken in the reign of Augustus. And to prove that this is true, it is written in the Gospel by Luke as follows: "And in the fifteenth year, in the reign of Tiberius Caesar, the word of the Lord came to John, the son of Zacharias." And again in the same book: "And Jesus was coming to His baptism, being about thirty years old," and so on. And that it was necessary for Him to preach only a year, this also is written: "He hath sent Me to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord." This both the prophet spake, and the Gospel.(Stromata 1:21)
The bottom line here is that even though the citations start from Luke, the final citation has Clement just states 'this also is written' Jesus said:
"He hath sent Me to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord."
«ἐνιαυτὸν δεκτὸν κυρίου κηρῦξαι ἀπέστειλέν με.»
This is certainly not from our canonical Luke. It does not follow from what is portrayed in Luke 4:16 - 18. It is not a reading from Isaiah chapter 61. It is Jesus declaring that he was sent to announce that the coming Jubilee year was the fulfillment of messianic prophesy. The most plausible explanation of this variant reading is that it comes from a 'secret gospel' (note Clement does not explain its origin).
Can't it be a paraphrase of Luke 4:18-19 ?
He hath sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.
I'll just note that Origen is referring to the parable in Luke about Lazarus.
No. There is a reference to the Rich Man and Lazarus but it's at least 25 sentences later. I didn't want to transcribe the entire section but it looks like I will have to:
“A consecrated linen tunic will be put on.” (Lev 16:4)
Think of flax thread that comes from the earth. Imagine that the flax thread becomes a sanctified linen tunic that Christ, the true high priest, puts on when he takes up the nature of an earthly body. Remember he takes up the nature of an earthly body. Remember that it is said about the body that“it is earth and it will go into the earth.” Therefore, my Lord and Savior, wanting to resurrect that which had gone into the earth, took an earthly body that he might carry it raised up from the earth to heaven. And the assertion in the Law that the high priest is clothed "with a linen tunic" contains a a figure of this mystery. But that it added "sanctified" must not be heard as superfluous. For "the tunic" that was the flesh of Christ was "sanctified," for it was not conceived from the seed of man but begotten of the Holy Spirit.
"And linen breeches should be on his body" (Lev 16:4) The “breeches” are a garment with which the private parts of the body are usually covered and constrained. Therefore, if you perceive that our Savior had indeed taken a body and, placed in this body, did human deeds, that is, eating, drinking and other similar things but did not do that deed alone which pertains to the private parts of the body, and did not give his flesh either in marriage or in the procreation of sons, you will discover in what sense he had sanctified "linen breeches." Thus truly it should be said about this that "our more dishonorable members have more abundant honor."18 Nevertheless, consider also the habit itself of the high priest because what appears less than honorable in him by nature, when clothed with linen breeches and bound with a girdle according to the letter, it is fitting to be said about him: "Our more dishonorable members have more abundant honor."
Thus, therefore, everyone who lives in chastity also imitates Christ, the one who did not know this alone from human deeds. Yet even he put on "the sanctified linen breeches" and wrapped his "more dishonorable members with his more abundant honor."
Therefore, "the sanctified linen tunic" is put on and "the linen breeches" are upon his body. But lest perchance these "breeches," with which his private parts are covered, having become loose, should fall down and uncover and reveal his dishonor (for it says "you will not take a step to the altar lest your dishonor be revealed in these Exodus 20.26) therefore, lest in the falling down of the breeches "your dishonor be revealed," it says, "the breeches are bound with a belt." At one time we explained about John the Baptist and at another about Jeremiah, that indeed Jeremiah is said to have had a belt but John is said to have had a leather belt around his loins. We showed sufficiently how through these signs that part of the body was declared among such men so dead that it could not be believed that there was either "levity" or any other such thing in their "loins" but only chastity and perfect modesty.
Therefore, the high priest "is bound with a linen belt and places a linen tiara upon his head."(Leviticus 16:4) All is linen. What is called "a tiara" is a certain ornament which is placed upon the head which the high priest or other priests use in offering sacrifices. But each of us also ought to adorn his head with priestly ornaments. For "the head of every man is Christ
I will finish this up later ...
Origen does not link this to the raising of Lazarus as in John.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
It would appear that Origen connects the freeing of Barabbas directly with the scapegoat unless I am completely mistaken. But before I do let me note that the tenth homily was formerly identified as being written by Cyril of Alexandria:
Nos quidem, qui de Ecclesia sumus, merito Moysen recipimus et scripta eius legimus sentientes de eo quod propheta sit et Deo sibi reuelante in symbolis et figuris ac formis allegoricis conscripserit futura mysteria, quae in tempore suo docemus impleta. Qui uero huiusmodi in eo non recipit sensum, siue Iudaeorum quis siue etiam nostrorum est, is ne prophetam quidem eum docere potest; quomodo etenim prophetam probabit, cuius litteras asserat esse communes, futuri nullius conscias nec https://books.google.com/books?id=JObGA ... 22&f=false
Nos quidem qui de ecclesia sumus, merit'o Moysen recipimus, et scripta eius legímus sentientes de eo quod propheta fit, sit et Deo sibi reuelante in symbolis et figuris ac formis allegoricis conscripserit futura mysteria, quae in tempore suo docemus impleta. Qui uero huiusmodi in eo non recipit sensum, siue Iudaeorum quis siue etiam nostrorum est, is ne prophetam quidem eum docere potest; https://books.google.com/books?id=aotVA ... 22&f=false
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
But getting back to Andrew's point for a minute Origen does eventually get around to mentioning the Rich Man and Lazarus in the two goat context but this has little or nothing to do with the raised figure mentioned above:
Sed primo omnium ostendamus, quomodo haec, quae de sacrificiis conscribuntur, figuras esse Apostolus dicit et formas, quarum ueritas in aliis ostendatur, ne forte auditores praesumere nos arbitrentur et legem Dei in alium sensum, quam scripta est, violenter inflectere, quippe si nulla in his quae asserimus, Apostolica praecedat auctoritas. Paulus ergo ad Hebraeos scribens, eos scilicet, qui legem quidem legerent et haec meditata haberent et bene nota, sed indigerent intellectu, qualiter sentiri de sacrificiis debeat, hoc modo dicit: Non enim in sancta manu facta introiuit Iesus, exemplaria uerorum, sed in ipsum caelum, ut appareat nunc uultui Dei pro nobis. Et iterum dicit de hostiis: Hoc enim fecit semel, se ipsum hostiam offerendo. Sed quid de his singulatim quaerimus testimonia? Omnem epistolam ipsam ad Hebraeos scriptam si qui recenseat et praecipue eum locum, ubi pontificem legis confert pontifici repromissionis, de quo scriptum est: Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech, inueniet, quomodo omnis hic locus Apostoli exemplaria et formas ostendit esse rerum uiuarum et uerarum illa, quae in lege scripta sunt. Oportet ergo nos quaerere pontificem, qui semel in anno, id est per omne hoc praesens saeculum, sacrificium obtulit Deo indutus ueste, cuius Domino iuuante, quae sit qualitas, ostendemus. Tunica inquit linea sanctificata induetur. Linum de terra oritur, tunica ergo sanctificata linea induitur uerus pontifex Christus, cum naturam terreni corporis sumit; de corpore enim dicitur quia terra sit et in terram ibit. Volens ergo Dominus et Saluator meus hoc, quod in terram ierat, resuscitare terrenum suscepit corpus, ut id eleuatum de terra portaret ad caelum. Et huius mysterii tenet figuram hoc quod in lege scribitur, ut linea tunica pontifex induatur. Sed quod addidit: sanctificata, non otiose audiendum est. Sanctificata namque fuit tunica carnis Christi; non enim erat ex semine uiri concepta, sed ex sancto Spiritu generata.
Et femoratia inquit tinea sint super corpus eius". Femoratia indumentum est, quo pudenda corporis contegi et constringi solent. Si ergo adspicias Saluatorem nostrum suscepisse quidem corpus et in corpore positum egisse humanos actus, id est uescendi et bibendi et cetera similia, hoc autem solum opus non egisse, quod ad pudenda corporis pertinet, carnemque eius neque nuptiis neque filiorum procreationi patuisse, inuenies, qualiter femoralia linea sanctificata habuerit, ut uere de ipso dici debeat quia: Inhonestiora abundantiorem habent honorem. Considera tamen et ipsum pontificis habitum, quia, quod per naturam minus in eo honestum uidetur, indutis femoralibus lineis et zona constrictis etiam secundum litteram de eo conuenit dici quia: Inhonestiora nostra abundantiorem honestatem habent. Ita ergo et omnis, qui in castitate uiuens imitatur Christum, hoc solum de humanis actibus nescientem, etiam ipse lineis femoralibus sanctificatis indutus est et inhonestioribus suis abundantiorem circumdedit honestatem.
Tunica ergo linea sanctificata induitur et femoralia linea super corpus ejus sunt. Sed ne forte femoralia haec, quibus pudenda conteguntur, resoluta defluant et turpitudinem reuelent ac retegant – non enim inquit facies gradus ad altare, ne forte reueletur in his turpitudo tua – ne ergo turpitudo tua defluentibus femoralibus reueletur, zona, inquit, femoralia constringantur. Quodam tempore exponentes Iohannem baptistam et alias Hieremiam, quod Hieremias quidem zonam, Iohannes uero pelliciam zonam circa lumbos habuisse diceretur, sufficienter ostendimus, quomodo per haec declaretur indicia pars illa corporis apud huiusmodi uiros ita emortua, ut neque leuis neque alius quisquam in lumbis eorum fuisse crederetur, sed sola castitas et pura pudicitia.
Zona ergo pontifex linea cingitur et cidarim lineam ponit super caput suum, omnia linea. Cidaris quod dicitur, ornatus quidam est, qui capiti superponitur, quo utitur pontifex in offerendis hostiis uel ceteri sacerdotes. Sed et unusquisque nostrum ornare debet caput suum sacerdotalibus ornamentis. Etenim quoniam omnis uiri caput Christus est, quicumque ita agit, ut ex actibus suis conferat gloriam Christo, caput suum, qui est Christus, ornauit. Potest et alio modo in nobis intelligi capitis ornatus. Quoniam quidem quod est in nobis primum, mens est, ad dignitatem pontificis excolet caput suum, si qui mentem suam adornauerit sapientiae disciplinis. Ista igitur sunt, quibus indui praecipitur pontifex, et ita demum introire in sancta, ne haec non habens moriatur.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote