NOGO

Finally an intelligent comment and thank you for your imput

I don't follow.
If the path of eagle in the sky vanishes as it is being traced and the same is true for a snake on a rock and a ship at sea
THEN obviously
when a person wipes his/her mouth after eating the evidence for what has happened is gone.
AND so is the evidence for adultery after washing.

This supports the idea that the verse 20 is definitely part of the 18 and 19.

So what is the ways of a man with a maiden?
It must be that he tries to hide the evidence as much as possibe since they are not married, the same way that an adulteress hides what she has done.

Evangelion

The footnotes in the New American Bible read as follows:

• [19] The soaring flight of the eagle, the mysterious movement upon a rock of the serpent which has no feet, the path of the ship through the trackless deep, and the marvelous procreation of human life, excite great wonderment.
  
  [20] This verse portrays the indifference of an adulterous woman who thinks there is no trace of her wicked act.

Brenton's LXX translates the passage in the following way:

• Proverbs 30:19.
  the track of a flying eagle; and the ways of a serpent on a rock; and the paths of a ship passing through the sea; and the ways of a man in youth.

Young's Literal and the Douay-Rheims follow suit, while the Contemporary English Version has:

• How eagles fly so high or snakes crawl on rocks, how ships sail the ocean or people fall in love.

Finally, the footnotes of the New English Translation:

• It is difficult to know for certain what these had in common for the sage. They are all linked by the word “way” (meaning “a course of action”) and by a sense of mystery in each area.
  
  Suggestions for the four include:
  
  (1) all four things are hidden from continued observation, for they are in majestic form and then gone;
  
  (2) they all have a mysterious means of propulsion or motivation;
  
  (3) they all describe the movement of one thing within the sphere or domain of another; or
  
  (4) the first three serve as illustrations of the fourth and greatest wonder, which concerns human relationships and is slightly different than the first three.
  
  The last is the most difficult. The MT reads hm*l=u^B= rb#G\ Er\D\w+ (“and the way of a man with a maid”). The last term does not in and of itself mean “virgin” but rather describes a young woman who is sexually ready for marriage.
  
  What is probably in view here is the wonder of human sexuality, for the preposition B= (bet) in this sequence indicates that the “way of the man” is “with” woman.
  
  This mystery might begin with the manner of obtaining the love of the young woman, but focuses on the most intimate part of human relationships. And all of this was amazing to the sage. All of it is part of God’s creative plan and therefore can be enjoyed and appreciated without fully comprehending it.
  
  Equally amazing is the insensitivity of the adulterer to the sin. The use of the word “way” clearly makes the link between this and the preceding material.
  
  Its presence here also lends support to the interpretation of the final clause in v. 19 as referring to sexual intimacy. While that is a wonder of God’s creation, so is the way that human nature has distorted it and ruined it.
  
  The word clearly indicates that the woman is married and unchaste; but the text describes her as amoral as much as immoral—she sees nothing wrong.
  
  The acts of “eating” and “wiping her mouth” are euphemistic; they employ an implied comparison between the physical act of eating and finishing eating on the one hand with sexual activity on the other hand (e.g., Prov 9:17).
  
  This is the amazing part of the observation. It is one thing to sin, for everyone sins; but to dismiss the act so easily, as if it were no more significant that a meal, that is the amazing part.

Peter Kirby

Isn't this a mistranslation, or at least a change of expression, in the Septuagint? The Hebrew has `almah, translated "with a maid." The Greek has εν νεοτητι, translated "in youth."

best,
Peter Kirby

Evangelion

Neither; it's simply taken from a different textual stream.

As noted in Adam Clarke's Commentary:

• The way of a man with a maid -
  "bealmah" with or in a maid; but one of De Rossi’s MSS. has "bealmaiv", in his youth; and with this the Septuagint, "ev neothti", the Vulgate, "in adolescentia", the Syriac and the Arabic agree; and so also my own MS. Bible: - The weie of a man in his waxing youthe.
  
  Dr. Kennicott, in a sermon preached at Onsford, 1765, p. 46, has defended the reading of the versions, corroborating it by two MSS., one in the Harleian, and the other in the Bodleian library, besides that mentioned by De Rossi. See De Rossi’s Var. Lect.
  
  Certainly the way of a man in his youth contains too many intricacies for human wisdom to explore. He only who searches the heart knows fully its various corrupt principles, and their productions.
  
  The common reading may refer to the formation of a child in the womb. But some have understood it of the immaculate conception. See my note on Mat_1:23 (note), where the subject is largely considered.

Thus we see that the LXX's gloss is supported by the Aramaic and Vulgate - which in turn helps to explain why Young's Literal and the Douay-Rheims follow suit.

Peter Kirby

Do you know of an edition of the Old Testament that will indicate these textual variants in an apparatus?

What makes us think that the variant reading predates the Septuagint?

best,
Peter Kirby

Evangelion

No, I don't. I've found several versions which indicate textual variants in a number of passages, but I don't know of any version which mentions all of them.

I wasn't aware that it did. Certainly, I make no such claim myself - and quite frankly, I'm equally happy with either rendition.

As for the correct interpretation of the passage in question - if we take the traditional gloss, I defer to the footnotes of the NAB & NET; if the LXX's gloss, I defer to Adam Clarke's analysis.

Peter Kirby

Which one do you recommend? I know that, for the New Testament, everyone uses the UBS apparatus.

best,
Peter Kirby

Evangelion

NRSV & NET. I have found both of them to be consistently objective (particularly when dealing with textual variants) although neither one is without its faults. The footnotes of the NET are far more comprehensive than those of the NRSV, but the NRSV does tend to offer a more fluid translation in some cases.

I am eagerly awaiting the publication of Tabor's Transparent English Version (for which see here.) Current evidence suggests that it will be of an exceptional standard. I know of no other translation which conveys the nuances of the Hebrew so effectively as this one will.

And fair enough, too.

Evangelion

Incidentally, you can download a free HTML version of the NET by clicking here.

NOGO

Thanks for the input.
At least we agree that verse 20 is part of the same thought process as 18 and 19.

I find that what all of these interpretations fail to do is to account for the fact that the author states in the begining (v18) how many items he is talking about. Three of one kind and four of another and then there seems to be a fifth.

I say "seems" because in fact the fifth is an explanation of the fourth unless the author can't count.

In verses 21 to 23 it seems that he can count. No additional statement.

In verses 15 to 17, again, it seems that he can't count.

Again unless the fifth item is in fact an explanation of the fourth.

Can anybody account for the numbers or are you just going to ignore them in order to have it your way.

The bit about the adulteress must be part of the four and it can only be part of the fourth item and not the first three.

If the ways of a man with a maiden was something wonderful then he would have said four things (not three) which are too wonderful and five (not four) which I do not understand. Then and only then would the interpretations that you present reasonable. As it stand they simply do not match the text.

As it stands the fourth item "the ways of a man with a maid" is not classified as too wonderful by the author but it is classified as something which he does not understand. Now all you need to determine is where does the bit about the adulteress fit in?
Is it something too wonderful?
OR
Is it something he does not understand?