04_Reymond_224_246 15/07/14 12:18 Pagina 244 244 ERIC D. REYMOND The Greek suggests understanding the word as “plain”, while the Syriac has a slightly different sense but partially reflects the point- ing of hxwkn: “Her name is as her teaching and by fools she will not be approved” 45. The Hebrew text seems to be playing on the two possible ways the consonants rswm can be understood, either as “discipline” (a mem-preformative noun from the root rsy) or as “that which is removed” (a Hophal participle from the root rws) 46. The ambiguity of the word rswm is not immediately perceived by the reader/listener of the first colon. The phrase “like its name” hints to the reader that in the next colon another word etymologi- cally related to rswm may appear (as in the first two examples cited above), presumably a word from the root rsy. The lack of any such word and the reference to discipline not being “obvious” force the reader to reflect on other possible meanings of rswm. The ambiguity of the syllables mūsār, in effect, helps to demonstrate to the reader what the verse itself is articulating 47. And confusion is not limited to the multiple meanings of mūsār. The orthography also plays a role in impeding the understanding of the verse. It is possible that a pun is being made not (only) with the Hophal participle of rws, but also with the similar sounding rswm “bond” (mōsēr), which word is implied in 6,24 where the Hebrew is not extant (pe,dh “chain” and kloio,j “collar”) and which is mentioned in Hebrew in 6,30 (hytrswm “her bonds”) 48. Presumably, such a connection may have encour- aged the (mis)pointing of the last word as the Niphal participle of 45 CALDUCH-BENAGES et al., Sabiduría, 86. For more on this verse, see N. CALDUCH-BENAGES, “A Wordplay on the Term mûsar (Sir 6,22)”, Weisheit als Lebensgrundlage. Festschrift für Friedrich V. Reiterer zum 65. Geburtstag (eds. R. EGGER-WENZEL, et al.) (DCLS 15; Berlin 2013) 13-26. The fragment of this passage from the Dead Sea Scrolls, which has the masculine form xk[n] (2Q18 at Sir 6,22), is ambiguous. 46 For this interpretation, see W. BACHER, “Notes on the Cambridge Frag- ments of Ecclesiasticus”, JQR 12 (1899-1900) 272-290, here 277, and LÉVI, L’Ecclésiastique, 2:35. 47 See REYMOND, “Wordplay in the Hebrew to Ben Sira”, 42. 48 See PETERS, Ecclesiasticus, 25; J.J. GLÜCK, “Paronomasia in Biblical Literature”, Semitics 1 (1970) 50-78, here 59-60; L. SCHRADER, Leiden und Gerechtigkeit. Studien zu Theologie und Textgeschichte des Sirachbuches (Frankfurt am Main 1994) 167; and N. SEGER, “L’Utilisation de la polysémie des racines hébraïques chez Ben Sira” (unpublished Ph.D. diss.; Strasbourg 2005) 87-96.