[8:18] 1 tc Ball reads אֵל (’el, “God”) instead of אִם (’im, “if”): “God destroys it” – but there is no reason for this. The idea would be implied in the context. A. B. Davidson rightly points out that who destroys it is not important, but the fact that it is destroyed.
[8:18] tn The Hebrew has “if one destroys it”; the indefinite subject allows for a passive interpretation. The verb means “swallow” in the Qal, but in the Piel it means “to engulf; to destroy; to ruin” (2:3; 10:8). It could here be rendered “removed from its place” (the place where it is rooted); since the picture is that of complete destruction, “uprooted” would be a good rendering.
[8:18] 2 tn Heb “it”; the referent (“his place” in the preceding line) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
[8:18] sn The place where the plant once grew will deny ever knowing it. Such is the completeness of the uprooting that there is not a trace left.
[8:18] 3 tn Here “saying” is supplied in the translation.
[31:8] 4 tn The cohortative is often found in the apodosis of the conditional clause (see GKC 320 §108.f).
[31:8] 5 tn The word means “what sprouts up” (from יָצָא [yatsa’] with the sense of “sprout forth”). It could refer metaphorically to children (and so Kissane and Pope), as well as in its literal sense of crops. The latter fits here perfectly.
