on the reproduction of a controversial evangelical passage in Romanian ( Mt , 19 , 24 )

The present research follows, from a diachronic perspective, the solutions that Romanian translators and revisers have applied to the biblical passage from Mt, 19, 24, also present in Mk, 10, 25 and Lk, 18, 25. Taking into consideration that they had, at least up to a point, the privilege of expressing themselves in circumstances that allowed a certain freedom compared to the base text, I have searched to clearly understand the nature of the factors that determined them to assume this liberty and what guided their linguistic options. The research has intended to examine two types of texts: the integral biblical one (the New Testament and the Bible) and the text that is specifically used by the clergy, The Gospel, in its successive versions, starting from the 16th century up to the modern era; the observed facts call attention to the scholar who is in charge of the text, who exhibits a behaviour that entails trust in his prior knowledge about the content and form of the fashioned text, a critical assessment of the version that serves as a starting point and the renewal of linguistic solutions offered by sources of a different nature from the rectified text.


Introduction
Lately, the philological and linguistic research of fundamental old age books has made a priority from identifying foreign sources that constituted their base, all the more that the information present in the preface was either insufficient, selective or erroneous, for the most part.Brought to a successful conclusion, the detailed study succeeded in identifying, as a complementary result, various types of behaviours belonging to the ones which warrant the next stage in a text's life, in a linguistic space, guided by factors such as "numărul și caracteristicile surselor; rezultanta contactului dintre limbi […]; caracterul sacru al conținutului; conștientizarea necesității de a produce traduceri utile unor categorii concrete de receptori" (Gafton, 2012, p. 33).
Although the researched corpus mainly consists of translations, some theoretical statements, found in agreement with the concrete reality of the constituency of successive versions of a text in Romanian, abundantly suggest that the attempt to follow types of references to the text from those who no longer work with a foreign source-text is not in the least farfetched, and not only with that, but with a text already translated in Romanian, which is rewritten: by copy, correction, revision, adaptation and print.In a process of such nature, telling are not the deviations from the Romanian or from the foreign base text (taking into account misreading or the insufficient knowledge of the source language, accompanied by the translator's ignorance concerning his incompetence 1 consequences of a lack of attention or other human weaknesses, but by those which, taking into account the linguistic, cultural and cognitive context in which they appear, sustain the supposition that they are assumed by the author, thus being the result of a critical lecture of the text and of an option.In such cases, the option or choice (within all the spheres of the language) is stimulated by factors whose visibility varies from one text to another and sometimes even inside the same text: the prediction-and later, the knowledge-and the adoption of a linguistic system paradigmatically different from that of the base text 2 ; the principles after which the reviser-sometimes, with the same assertion to entitlement, but as opposed to the translator (see Gafton, 2002, p. LVII;2005, p. 65)-meant to provide the text that he worked on with the status of sacred product and norm; the type of text that is processed; the desired purposefulness; the type of target audience.
In every situation, within the objective limits imposed on one hand, by language and conceptual contents of the original source text and, on the other hand, by the possibilities offered by functional language (Coșeriu, 2000, p. 268f.) in which the text is recreated, or made possible, tolerable within it, the subjectivity of the human intermediary manifests itself.
The context that best emphasises this aspect is the one in which either a translator or a reviser has at his disposal more than one source text or base text of the same type (Bible / evangelical sermon text / homily, etc.) as support for the Romanian version.
Their existence did not warrant the act of faithful choice, although, in ensemble, the awareness of this reality allowed for the translator or the generic reviser to be liberated from the psychological webbing of the "unique, inviolable model".A routine of rudimentary hermeneutics-as an endeavour precursory of a choice which, respecting the spirit of the text, simultaneously fulfils the cultural and linguistic limitations of the scribe and, eventually of the community he services-could be imagined only in the ideal case of a coherent and repeated consultation, from the beginning to the closing stages, of two or more versions of the text in question.
The judgement on the text, together with its corollary-the option-is thus imposed upon by the adopted work techniques, all the more so when the latter emphasises major disparities between the texts 3 .Furthermore, the study of a certain emergent Romanian edition compared to the texts that served as its source indicates that "nu se poate vorbi de o consultare paralelă și minuțioasă, cu găsirea soluțiilor de traducere după îndelungi deliberări" (Gafton, 2002, p. LVI).Thus, in the genuine process of transposition or settling the text into a final form in Romanian, reaching out to a second text to serve as referenceextant, yet abandoned at some point and, for good reason, dormant 4 -, transforms itself into an option, precursory to the linguistic choice.
To try to ascertain the nature of this variation generating impediment, as well as attempting to understand what type of erudite is more inclined towards the refinement of the text that he is working on, where he seeks justification and, ultimately, what kind of text is more likely to be subjected to this process are enticing goals, but none the least difficult to achieve, particularly when the researcher has at his disposal 2 See, for example, the observation that "[e]xistența a două «norme literare» era un fapt notoriu pentru oamenii de cultură ai vremii, atîta timp cît unul și același text tipărit în Moldova și retipărit în Țara Românească, era transpus în norma literară predominantă în provincia în care se făcea retipărirea" (Arvinte, 2001, p. I, [italics added]); see, also, the statement according to which "copiștii Codicelui Sturdzan, asemenea tuturor slujitorilor vechiului scris românesc, modificau textele pe care le reproduceau cu scopul de a le subordona propriului sistem lingvistic" (Chivu, 1988, p. 276, [italics added]); etc.

2.
Mt, 19, 24 (Mk, 10, 25; Lk, 18, 25) Among numerous other situations in which, by lack of consent from behalf of translators and revisers, we can observe a lack of cohesion regarding the process of perfecting the text, Mt, 19, 24 (see also Mk,10,25 and Lk,18,25) is emphasised, being overlooked until now from this perspective.
In a recently published article (Chirilă, 2013), I have demonstrated-in the closing stages of an analysis that had as rationale: α) the manner in which the fragments Mt,19,24,Mk,10,25 and Lk,18,25 are commented upon by the theologian of the early Christian ages, β) the testimonials, in texts independent from religious writings, of a homonym κάμηλος or of a conjugate κάμιλος, with the meaning of 'rope' as opposed to κάμηλος 'camel' , γ) the conceptual content of the cotext represented by Mt, 19 etc., and δ) the occurrence in Talmud and Midrash literature of a similar paremiological fragment similar to the one used in the evangelical comparison-that the incidence of a term with the meaning 'camel' in the biblical fragments in question must not be justified by confusion or the translator's lack of skill, but by the predominance of a verbal physiognomy (Jolles, 2012, p. 63f., 327-335) characteristic of a certain popular culture and employed as a means of interpreting a situation whose contextual elements belong to the same background.

Reproductions in the old age
The written record of both interpretations, within the Eastern Christian part (although in unequal proportions) has determined oscillation to arise in the early Romanian theological culture 5 .
It is believed that the origin of this interpretational possibility in the Romanian text does not have an equivalent with a real-ultimately assumed-account of an element other than "the camel" as opposed to "the eye of a needle" in the evangelical discourse; it is very likely that the Romanian translator may have only been faithful to the corpus that happened to perpetuate this vision (with a persistent character, more likely marginal, in the Byzantine Middle Ages)-the collection of sermons of John Kalekas, in one of the Slavic versions found in use (Rădulescu, 1959, p. 10-33;cf. Grecu, 1939).Nothing in the configuration of the neighbouring co-text, with regard to the linguistic choices for the equivalence of the terms in the source text seems to point to the contrary.
The interpretation of Gr. κάμηλος, ὁ / κάμιλος, ὁ as 'funie' is found in the late patristic literature, yet it does not provide any satisfactory explanations and does not have the power to mould the hermeneutic discourse.The same situation is found in the theological writings of Theophylact of Bulgaria (1055-1107): The metatextual similarities of expression between the two corpora, of archbishop Theophylact and of patriarch John Kalekas, indicate the adoption-already a cliché-element in the comment of the said places in the Gospels-of mimicking a form that, in itself, belongs to the category of illocutionary sugestives 11 .
It maintains itself as is, through faithful translation, in the homilies that follow a certain patristic pattern, but which help determine, at some point, the birth of assertive/informative expressions which will further create an interpretative tradition.
By following other models, the subsequent Romanian translations that contain the sermons to Mt, 19, Mk, 10, and Lk, 18 and the versions found in relation to them have no record, until just before the 16 th century, of the item 'funie' (see cv 164312 , 276 v , 277 v , 380 v , 381 r ; cî 1678, 37 r ), not even as a unique or alternative means of reading the evangelical section.
The manner in which the content of Mt,19,24,Mk,10,25,and Lk,18,25 is rendered in the first Romanian texts, particularly the dual image that, in ensemble, cc 2 has popularised, fully supports the observation that solving some "issues" in translation, such as the likes of κάμηλος, ὁ (κάμιλος, ὁ) -cămilă/funie, is produced by forces outside the analytical conscience of the translator (which, for the most part, did not have sufficient contextual circumstances to be called forth): the form of the source text and its status in the cult taxonomy (primary text -the New Testament or secondary source -the homily).
This phenomenon-and its obverse-is best noticeable by following the behaviour of translators and revisers from the second part of the old age, some of them being able, in the course of time, to work on several varieties of books which had at their origin the same content.
In 1682, in Prefața la Evanghelia printed in Bucharest, Șerban Cantacuzino ordered for the following to be written: "ne-am nevoitŭ de am săvărșitŭ acestŭ lucru Dumnezăescŭ, svănta acĭasta evanghelie, care nefiindŭ maĭ denainte tocmită la slovenie să-să cetéscă dupâ rănduiala zilelorŭ și a sărbătorilorŭ celorŭ domnești și ale svințilorŭ, poruncit-amŭ frateluĭ nostru Iordachie Cantacuzino, vel stolnicŭ, de o au îndereptatŭ și o au așăzatŭ precumŭ umblă cé ellinéscă, și întru toate asémene, dupâ orănduĭala Besérecii Răsărituluĭ, alcătuindu-se și svintele cuvinte, spre maĭ alésă înțelégere a limbiĭ Rumănești."(apud brv I, p. 250) The passage is, therefore, written by a layman or under the guidance of one, by means of reproducing the structure of the Byzantine sermon book, not necessarily by consequently translating a certain version of it, but rather (the pragmatism of the scholars in Bucharest was well known, proven by the coming to fruition of the Bible in 168813 ), by serving themselves from one or more precursory Romanian books.Whichever it would have been14 the scholar that was in charge of e 1682 processed the text in a manner that reveals a certain degree of certainty and independence in relation to the Romanian New Testament archetype that he could have had at hand and, on the other hand, the tendency or returning to the foreign text-an occasion to make the most of some foreign language knowledge that have nothing to do with the resources and uses of Romanian employed in texts up to that point.
By rendering Gr. ἀσκός, ου, ὁ through foi and borduși, in the second and third fragments, the man of letters offers variety (Gafton & Milică, 2012, p. 167) to the expression, by acting under the impetus of a subjective aesthetics, yet innovating compared to the Greek source 16 and/or17 the alternative Romanian versions, all within the limits of a paradigmatic synonymic chain.On the other hand, the fragment (iară) de nu compared to că aimintrea, for Gr.εἰ (δὲ) μή, introduces a textual element particular to a foreign logic-syntactic structure (considered to be Greek18 ), forcing the receiver-through the fact that it summarises, with the aid of a negative adverb, an opposing assumption ([-]) reality expressed through a negative verbal form ([-])-to an additional effort regarding its deciphering for the 1648 version that he circumvented: Că nime nu pune pétec de la haină noao la haină véchie.Iară de nu √ [*de 'nu nu pune' → dacă pune], și cea noao strică, și la cea véche nu să potrivéște acel ce iaste de la cea noao etc. (e 1682), vs. că nime peatecul de veșmînt nou nu-l va pune în veșmînt vechiu; iară aimintrea √ [dacă pune] și cel nou să va sparge; și la cel vechiu nu să cuvine peatecul nou etc. (nt 1648).
The divergent solution from Mk advances some hindrances about the circumstance and the causes of its origin.The fact that we are dealing with a base text of relatively small breadth, popular and of a repetitive nature, suggests that the difference within itself is not spawned by a synchronic incongruence regarding its reference to the following: even if, in the conscience of the scholar 19 uncertainty or unease would have existed regarding the "correct" reproduction of Gr.κάμηλος / κάμιλος in Romanian, within the given context, this could not have been stronger than the necessity of transmitting a homogenous text at the level of lexical choices, either in one direction or another, especially when any presumptive canonical reference-internal or external-indicates it.We believe that, on the contrary, the aspect that the printed text e 1682 has is the product of two stages in its creation: funia cea de corabie belongs to the first version of the text, occurring in four other places of the Evangheliar, corresponding to the three biblical fragments; cămila appears as a result of a revision, under the pressure of the integral non-Testamentary text in its prior editions: the revisor (Iordache Cantacuzino himself or another individual) decided to concede the original variant and consequently modified the text in Mt, 19 and Lk, 18, but omitting, for some reason, to correct in Mk, 10 with its two quotes.
On the whole, in order to solve the "problem" issued by Mt, 19, 24 etc., several types of information were made available: a) the information provided by the standard Gospel text in the Romanian versions up to that point; b) the model of a similar foreign text; c) the information collected from secondary texts related to the Gospel (including different collections of preaching); d) the translator's linguistic knowledge.
Regarding the special case of e 1682, the Romanian archetypal texts based on which they could have been built (the full versions of the 16 th and 17 th century's New Testament) do not allow the interpretation of "funie" and the use of a suitable lexeme: not implicitly -through ct 1561; nor explicitly -following what represents the first clear indication over the development of a critical act, prior to the Romanian translation of the litigious phrase from Mt,19,24,Mk,10,25,and Lk,18,25, which reveals itself from the formulated footnote of verse 24, in the first Gospel 20 , in nt 1648: "Cămila să zice că-i funea corabii, iar în acest loc, să înțeleage cămila" (italics added).Being aware of the "object's" double identity, in opposition with the phrase 'urechea acului' in the history of the biblical exegesis, from the Greek direction, the translator/ author of the final text (i.e.Simion Ștefan) chose the version imposed by the fundamental biblical text, not the one suggested by secondary theological writings, which was furthermore sustained by the Latin text 21 : et iterum dico vobis facilius est camelum per foramen acus transire quam divitem intrare in regnum caelorum (vul) 22 .
Admitting the fact that the foreign models of this type of book used for religious practice are building themselves with a certain independence from the canonical biblical text (cf.e 1671, p. 69 (Mt [zac.79 (sic)]), 121 (Lk [zac.91]) and 123 (Mk [zac. 45,46]), where the impossible word is presented in the classical form: κάμηλον etc.), we must not ignore the possibility of the Romanian version's translator to have consulted such a text, therefore finding the evidence for the form funia cea de corabie.However, it is necessary to underline that the appearance of a lexical formation with an obviously different meaning than 'cămilă' does not represent a condition for the appearance of the divergent phrase in the Romanian language.This situation can occur independently from a real model (either only spoken, but present!)as the situation from e 1693 shows, where the Greek column invariably presents the form κάμηλον, while the parallel Romanian text constantly presents the forms funea corăbiii (Mt, 97; Lk, 175) / funiii cei de corabie (Mk,178).
21 About the texts on which nt 1648 is created, including the Latin one, see Gafton, 2009, p. 130; 2005, p. 42, 151.  2Just by admitting that we are facing the bishop's redundant language, we might consider the marginal note as being a proof of supporting the opposite point of view (cf.Zamfir, 2011, p. 568: "[the marginal note] conducts the decoding of the word cămilă in the right direction", i.e., in the author's opinion, 'funie' , A/N, A.C.). 23Despite not being the object of our research anymore (cf.Chirilă, 2013), we are underlining an abnormality concerning the interpretation of the word κάμιλος in the crittical apparatus of the old literature's corpuses: the confusion between the phrase with the possible meaning of 'funie' and words that may occurat a certain time, under the same form, but with other meaning; see, for example, perseus, s.v.: κάμιλος, for which the definition is taken from liddell-scott-i.e., "A.rope etc." (!)-, is wrongly linked to a fragment from the work Roman Antiquities by Dionysius of Halicarnassus: "…τρόπον ὑπηρέτουν the term's real usage with the underlined meaning; the dictionaries do not register it just as they do not register the alternative form κάμιλος either, with the meaning of 'rope' (see, for example, lbg 1, s.v.κάμελος [(= κάμηλος), Kamel] etc., 754-755).In this situation, the idea of adopting the word κάμηλος, ὁ with the meaning of 'rope' by certain Romanian scholars with knowledge of Greek language, and the spontaneous use of this meaning for translating the underlined form in Mt, 19, 24 etc., exclusively based on Greek linguistic competencies, is rather a groundless one.It is not the semantic value of the Greek word κάμηλος which leads to choosing the Romanian word funie in relation to the phrase urechea acului, but rather the ignorance or inconsideration of it as a reliable presence in phrase building from the beginning, and as a consequence, perceiving another linguistic element of source as being adequate and unquestionable in the context.
From this moment arises the question if a suggestion for reading (similar to the one mentioned by Theophylact of Bulgaria-who talks about a possible image 'thick rope' without bringing into discussion the form κάμιλος (!)-, or by John Kalekas, Simion Ștefan, etc.), eventually joined by the impressionlexicographically popularised by Suidas 24 in the 10 th century, and perpetuated since then, but not confirmed by usage-that in the Greek vocabulary exists a phrase κάμιλος with the meaning of 'rope' which should have taken the place of κάμηλος in Mt, 19, 24 etc. have the power to turn Iordache Cantacuzino's option against what was imposed to him in the cannonical biblical text, through the valorification of a certain general knowledge regarding the Greek language… Fortunately, the steps for understanding the process at the end of which the text e 1682 presents the expression funia cea de corabie does not necessarily need such a question, avoiding the difficulty and the answer's possible conjectural elements.This is because in the rendering of the proverb from the Gospel appears, prior to the case of Romanian regions, in the Greek world, a distinctive term, κάμηλος, which "solves" the dilemma of choosing between κάμηλος (κάμιλος, κάμελος etc.) -'camel' vs. 'rope' .
The validation of this distinctive element comes through a text of theological nature which no longer remembers the essence of suggestion regarding the meaning, providing it as an assertion.Such a corpus is the collection of preaches known to the orthodoxy under the Greek title of Μαργαρίται…] -a neo-Greek rewriting of several patristic texts previously recorded in the Byzantine Greek language.The 35 th word from the version appeared in 1675 in Venice (see also m 1681, 252; etc.) includes the Gospel sequence in the context of John Chrysostom's requisite against the arrogance of the rich and the powerful: Against the canonical biblical text, in its full construction and keeping the form of the Gospel's text, but benefiting from the authority of a Modern Greek corpus with an immense popularity, the phrase τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν οἱ εγόμενοι νῦν ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίων κάμιλοι.ἔτι πρὸς τούτοις ἔταξε μάντινἐξ ἑκάστης φυλῆς ἕνα" […were performed in the same manner by those attendants of the priests who are now called by the Romans camilli.Furthermore, [Romulus] ordered one soothsayer out of each tribe to be present at the sacrifices, Dionysius, 1960, p. 372-373; see also footnote 2, p. 373: "The camilli were free-born youths who assisted in the sacrifices of the flamen Dialis; in time, however, the term came to be applied to those assisting in other religious rites."].
functions as a strong catalystic element for the information provided in the intellectual field of certain Romanian scholars, especially the secular ones, thus emerging as a certitude and strives, from that moment on to prevail in the Romanian translations of the stated Gospel segments, within the content of various writings, in an intellectual area which happened to be dominated by the Cantacuzines.
Two years later, the phrase is used four times, in the regular places, in the bilingual edition of the Gospel, printed in Snagov by Antim Ivireanul, following Șerban Greceanu's effort of building the text and Athanasie Moldoveanul's translation: e 1693, p. 97 (funea corăbiii, Mt, 19), 175 (funea corăbiii, Lk, 18), 178 (funiii cei de corabie, Mk, 10).Each time, the Greek column maintains the form ϰάμηλον, but the Romanian "option" is not negatively defined, against this Greek archetype, but in compliance with another text, due to the fact that the Greek column does not function as a source-text in the real time of the Romanian version's creation, but as an instrument of enriching the Romanian version.First of all, the Greek text is important due to its presence, not due to its content.Justifying the bilingual character of the book, in the Introduction for the ruler Constantin Brâncoveanu, Șerban Greceanu does not declare himself to be the translator of the mentioned Romanian version (see brv I, p. 333; cf.Ruffini, 1973, p. 117); pon the other hand, working for several years earlier for the Bible from Bucharest, it is possible for him to have used the previous work when building new editions (Ștrempel, 1997, p. 75).However, the linguistic difference between the texts e 1693 and b 1688 and the similarities of the first one with e 1682 suggest that the creation of the church practice instrument from 1693 was based on the same instrument as the one in 1682.If, taking into account the difference in "rank" between the texts, there is no genealogic link between the basic text used by the priests and the first complete version of the Romanian Bible (Gafton, 2002, p. LXX-LXXI), the resulted visual incongruences coming from a lecture in parallel of both texts support the hypothesis that the plans remain separated even in the age after "the supreme text" -the Bible was produced; furthermore, there is no proof the process was transposed in reverse.
The information stated above finds its support in the situation linked with, for example, the fragment from Mt,19, The stated significant differences are indices of the relations that exists between the texts and, by going down a stage in the history, of their sources26 and/or of the conception which guides the creation of the stated text.In the first situation, (a), e 1693 are e 1682 are similar regarding the content of the exposition of the third narrative segment from Mt, 19 -the encounter with the rich young man, the additional details (the identity of the man talking to Jesus and the gesture preceding the question) mirroring the structure of the same type of Greek book (see e 1671: νεανίσϰος τὶς ϖροσῆλϑε τῳ Ιἠσοῦ, γονυπετῶν αὐτὸν, ϰαὶ λέγων); b 1688 communicates much more laconically (see also nt 1648, Mt, 19, 16; Gr.Καὶ ἰδοὺ εἷς προσελθὼν αὐτῷ εἶπεν, n.-a.; Lat.Et ecce unus accedens, ait illi, vul).In the second example, (b), e 1693 brings forth the formula copula + predicative nominal (să nu fii mărturie mincinoasă) of the Greek form οὐ ψευδομαρτυρήσεις (Mt,19,18), from e 1682, not the solution with a predicative verb from b 1688 (să nu mărturisești minciuni).The situations from points (c) and (d) referring to e 1693 indicate the return to the options from e 1682, without the archaic note from b 1688: mergi vs. pasă (Mt,19,21), and să fie mîntuit / să să mîntuiască vs. (să va putea) spăsi (Mt,19,25).Thus, Șerban Greceanu may ignore a lexical choice he previously made use of when writing the Bible of 1688, when dealing with a different, more practical type of text by choosing at a certain point, a dissimilar alternative which he considered to be more fitting.
The situation concerning the rendering of the impossibility from Mt, 19, 24 etc. stays unchanged compared to e 1682 and e 1693, and also in case of the monolingual text printed in Snagov in 169727 : Iară Is. au zis ucenicilor săi: "Adevăr grăescu voao că nu va întra lesne bogatul întru Împărățiia ceriului.Și iară grăescu voao că mai lesne iaste funii corăbiei a treace prin ureache acului decît a întra bogatul întru Împ Both Gospels from Snagov are printed by Antim Ivireanul but, as presented above, the authority of the "erudite polyglot Antim" (Dumistrăcel, 2000, p. 51) may by no means represent an argument for the correctness of the word's interpretation as 'rope' and implicitly, for the wrong interpretation as 'camel' in the known passages-which, in the Greek text, contain κάμηλος, ὁ-and neither for pointing out a superior intuition of the Romanian scholars about the exact meaning of phrase that has been used against the needle's eye (cf.Zamfir, 2011, p. 568;Dumistrăcel, 2000, p. 51).Moreover, by translating the New Testament several years later, the same good scholar, with knowledge of Greek language, follows the classical solution, thus contributing to the familiarization of Romanians with the Christian proverb in the form which includes the giant creature's lack of hope in front of the small opening through which it needs to enter: "Și iarăși zic voao, mai lesne iaste cămila pren uréchia acului a tréce, decît bogatul întru împărățiia lui Dumnezău a întra."(nt 1793, Mt, 19, 24, 17 v , [italics added]; see also Mk, 10, 25, 37 v , as well as Lk, 18, 25, 64 r ).
Admitting that in 1693 and in 1697, when arranging the text for printing, Antim Ivireanul holds the linguistic necessary knowledge to control the Romanian text as a translation of the Greek one, and has the freedom to intervene according to its characteristics, the "inconsequence" appearing in the three books, in a period of 10 years, cannot be explained in a satisfactory manner outside the idea of the continuing existence of "two lines of text", created with different aims, based on distinctive principles and not starting from the same type of sources.There is no other text signed by Antim Ivireanul to allow the formation of a more subtle hypothesis regarding his personal reception and exploitation of the proverb sequence from Mt, 19, 24 etc., even though the 1895 edition of his preaches stresses out such a text.However, the book was created by I. Cornoi as a selection for scholars' usage, making use of sermons included in previous editions of the bishop's work: the one of C. Erbiceanu in 1888 and a 1889 volume compiled by Melhisedec.The sermon Duminica a 13-a a tênĕruluĭ celuĭ bogat.Luca is taken from a corpus that had been wrongly considered to be, by Melhisedec, as an original belonging to Antim Ivireanul, and that would be rejected as his work by P.V. Haneș, in 1915, andby Gabriel Ștrempel, in 1962 and in the following editions 28 .Therefore, the fragment extracted from the exodus: Staŭ de mĕ mir, de unde voĭŭ începe a povesti pricina Evanghelieĭ.De întrebăcĭunea tênĕrului carele a ais: Învĕțătorule bune, ce voĭŭ face să moștenesc viéța de véci?Au din hotărîrea stăpînuluĭ care a ais: maĭ lesne e a întra funia corăbieĭ prin urechile aculuĭ, decât bogatul a intra întru împĕrăția cerĭului.Ếnsă voĭu începe a aice: ce voĭu face să moștenesc viéța de véci?(Ivirénul, 1895, p. 205, [italics added]) does not belong, as the data seem to point out, to the early 18 th century scholar; moreover, the period of its creation is uncertain as well.The 1895 text only proves the existence of this Gospel's verse form in the Romanian culture of the period (along with the other one-a fact pointed out by Iuliu A. Zanne by quoting both versions, zanne, 11244, 89).

Translations in the modern period
From the 18th century until the second half of the 19th century, the two interpretations constantly emerge, yet are rigurously distributed according to the type of the text containing the Gospelers' narrations: in the Bible, regardless of the text source and language from which the translation is made (either Greek or Latin), in recreating the discourse about the impossibility of salvation through human efforts, the word cămilă is used (nt 1793, b 1760, b 1795, b 1819); while in the books directly involved in the preparation and performance of the religious service, in countless successive editions of the Gospel, faithful te each other, the same discourse in its quadruple rendering reproduces forms of the phrase funia corabiei (e 1723, 44 v , 81 v , 82 v ; e 1742, 44 v , 81 v , 82 v ; e 1750, 44 v ; e 1760, 44 v , 81 v , 82 v ; e 1762, 47 r , 86 v , 88 r ; e 1784, 40 r , 73 v , 74 r ; e 1794, 40 r , 73 v , 74 r ; e 1812, 38 v , 67 r ; etc.).Seldom, the habitual aspect given to it by the actual form of the biblical overruns the model inherited from the Gospel, thus giving it a non homogenous facet, through the use of the word camel in one of those sections: see, for example e 1784, 72 v ((a text related to the passage from Lk; see also e 1794, 72 v ; e 1812, 67 r ).
The priest and the parishioner-either with the help of the man of the church or on his own-from the end of the old age and the beginning of the modern one, are therefore frequently exposed to the interpretation mai lesne este să treacă o funie prin urechile acului… This image supports the central idea from Mt, 19 etc.; and, once made popular and benefiting from an ecclesiastical authority, it tends to replace the other 29 , while the cumbersomely proportioned Bible holding the text in its entirety is seldom visited anymore.
However, the 1874 version is rapidly criticised, the main reason being the fact that the translators did not follow the old texts, but other translations of the Biblical Society, in modern languages (Modern Greek, English, French, German, Italian etc.).The present fact, along with the excessively sharpened modernization of the language are presented as a justification 30 for a new translation process, initiated by N. Nitzulescu and finalised in February 1897.The new version contains a linguistic form unregistered in Mt, 19, 24 up to that point: Și iar zic voĕ: maĭ lesne este pentru o camilă să treacă printr'o ureche de ac, de cât pentru un avut să intre în împĕrăția lui Dumnezeu ([italics added]; see also Mk,10,25,Lk,18,25).
In the same manner, the editions b 1911 and b 1921, which take after b 1897, only use the form cămilă.

Mt, 19, 24
Mk, 10, 25 Lk, 18, 25 The meaning of the word is not explicitly stated anywhere, but it is obvious that the translator wanted a particular naming, other than the one from Mt, 23, 24, where the term cămilă is not stressed in any way: "Povățuitori orbi, cari strecurați țânțarul și înghițiți cămila".The novelty of the form was the result of a cautious behaviour: on one hand, by "making use" of the information provided by the dictionaries specialised in the Greek language, either general on new-testamentary, themselves reticent in stating a solid verdict, and, on the other hand, of an interpreting tradition, the translator returns to the Greek word κάμηλος / κάμιλος and creates a Romanian aspect semantically separated from 'cămilă' but which does not fully and openly face up to 'funie' .
From this moment on, the Romanian editions of the Bible, regardless of confession and the source text (b 1944, b 1997, Anania 2001, nt Cat 2002 etc.), are reinforcing in the reader's conscience the binomial cămilă -urechile/urechea acului, avoiding or simply paying no heed to the value of truth of the interpretation 'camel' vs. 'rope' .
The analysis we have performed on the evangelical text, in its various uses and forms, having as support a controversial verse from the old age, emphasises the fact that the man of letters in that period (either translator or a text reviser) had a behaviour that, by surpassing the stage of imitating the source-text, allowed him to trust his own prior knowledge about the form and content of the processed text, and includes the critique of the departure-point version and the usage of some linguistic solutions offered by sources other than the rectified text.
By going through the passage from Mt, 19, 24 etc., a scholar such as Iordache Cantacuzino or Șerban Greceanu does not consider that in the stated context, the Greek word κάμηλος needs to be associated with something other than cămilă [Engl.camel], but knows that the original text has to be of a different nature, and reconstructs this truth in certain circumstances.His judgement is similar to that of a present day translator, to which he probably contributes.