BHQ didn't comment on it in the textual commentary, so I looked at the HBCE—I realize that most of you can't do that yet, but being the copyeditor does have a few advantages! : ) Here's what Michael Fox says:
לא 26:2 MK MK G (οὐδενί) ≈ S (ܦܗܝܐ) T (לא) ]So what exactly does all that gobble de gook mean? : )
לוֹ MQ ≈ V (in quempiam) (aur)
G οὐκ ... οὐδενί is a double translation of the ketiv. V in quempiam (“on someone”) = MQ. S’s ܦܗܝܐ (“go astray”) ≈ לא תבא = MK. The ketiv is correct, since the analogies (a wandering bird, a flying sparrow) exemplify not coming (to a particular goal) rather than coming to someone. Also, לו has no relevant antecedent. However, a scribe may have thought that the noun “curse” implies an actant (a curser), and it is to him that the curse would return (as in Ps 109:17).
The ketiv, which is what the Septuagint (LXX) followed—as do most modern translations—says that an undeserved curse will not come to rest. In fact, the LXX goes so far as to make it emphatic by using a double negative, which Fox calls a double translation; personally, I think it is an intentional over-translation : ) The qere, on the other hand, is saying that an undeserved curse will return to the one who sent it forth! That is, it will come to rest on him where him is the implied originator. Grammatically shaky, at best, which is why Fox and most modern translations go with the ketiv. But, it does point out that the ancients were aware of the dangers of a thoughtless curse...witness Enkidu's worries from yesterday's post.
Isn't knowing all these languages fun!?