Whither Biblia Hebraica Quinta - Ancient Hebrew Poetry

16With respect to שחת vs. ‏,שחתו BHQ prefers the more difficult reading.OHB suggests that שחת sg assimilates to the sg of 32:7 following. But it ismore likely that שחתו pl assimilates to the pls of 32:3 and 32:6.לו - as for לא לו vs. לו לא OHB and BHQ differ in their explanation ofS, they are not discussed, but they are secondary in any ‏*לא * V and אcase. For OHB, it is a case of metathesis; in BHQ’s terminology, atransposition. For BHQ, it is a case of trying to avoid a text that isscandalous or derogatory. But this cannot be correct. Smr in context reads:‘Those not his dealt corruptly – children of blemish, / a perverse and crookedgeneration. // How could you . . .?’ This is no less harsh than the testpreserved in MT. On the other hand, BHQ acutely notes that MT’s accentsread the underlying text against the grain so as to avoid a derogatoryconstrual. BHQ actually provides an alternative accentuation.With respect to בניו vs. ‏,בני BHQ regards the latter as a facilitation. OHBthinks it may have “crept in, brought about by loss of ו by haplography(perhaps)’ then retained because it made better grammatical sense.” OHB’sexplanation is more exact. All other things being equal, the explanation ofmechanical error rather than intentional change is to be preferred.OHB and BHQ regard מומם M sim SP ‏(מום)‏ similarly: a “gloss” (BHQ);an “explicating plus” (OHB), but BHQ does not “prefer” the reading becauseno extant witness omits it. Along with Dillmann, Craigie, and Tigay (seeOHB’s excellent commentary), I don’t think the item should be thusexplained. Explicating plusses – the ones we know from the textual historyof Jer and Ezek, e.g. – are clarificatory. The presumed addition of מום orstill. to the remainder of the text makes a difficult text more difficult מומםHere is my take on the lemma:M (err-phonol [hapl] + err-graph/ phonol [similar בניו מומםבני ( SP │ ‏(מומם sonorants/ graphs]) │ V (filii ejus in sordibus) (interp of(hapl ‏(לטעותא בניא דפלחו)‏ ) G (τέκνα μωμητά) T ܒܐ ܪܐ ( S ‏(מום‏(מ before/after מומם in מ and י after בניו in ו ofול ול ו] בניו אמונםOn this reconstruction, א disappeared through aphaeresis, and נ morphedinto ‏.מ Tigay (per OHB) conjectured similarly, but he emended throughout32:5, which inevitably cast doubt on his core proposal. For אמון sg., cf. Deut32:20. For the syntax and sense of שחת per this reconstruction, cf. Am