Textual Criticism and Translation Proposal for Zephaniah 3:9-10

This study examines two textual cruxes in Zephaniah 3:9-10 and proposes a Korean translation on that basis. In verse 9 the Masoretic Text reads ‘śāpâ bǝrûrâ (שָׂפָה בְרוּרָה')’, “pure speech”, whereas the Septuagint renders it as “a tongue for its generation”. In verse 10 the phrase ‘ʿătāray bat-pûṣay (עֲתָרַי בַּת־פּוּצָי)’, “my suppliants, the daughter of my dispersed ones”, is absent from the Septuagint. The choice between these two text forms decides whether the horizon of salvation is limited to Israel or opened to the nations. The study engages Adrian Schenker’s hypothesis that the shorter Septuagint text reflects an earlier Hebrew Vorlage. His key argument is that the translator, who renders the words in question correctly elsewhere, could not have failed to understand them in 3:10. This study does not claim that the translator was ignorant of the noun ‘ʿātār (עֲטָר)’. It argues instead that Schenker’s premise is unproven. The parallels he cites for this root come from the Pentateuch translators, not from the translator of the Twelve; in fact, the verb does not occur in the Twelve at all. Moreover, the same translator demonstrably misread the hapax ‘kǝrōt (כְּרוֹת)’ in 2:6 as “Crete” and omitted the adjacent phrase. A mechanical omission is unlikely: nothing in the Hebrew could trigger a skip of the eye, and the omitted phrase is a self-contained unit whose loss leaves the sentence intact, the mark of a translator rather than a copyist. The external evidence also favors the Masoretic Text. The Murabbaʿat scroll (Mur 88) preserves ‘ʿătāray … pûṣay’ and reads the plural ‘ʿal hāʿammîm’ in verse 9, and the citation in 4QExposition on the Patriarchs (4Q464) reads both ‘ʾel ʿammîm’ and ‘bǝrûrâ’ with the Masoretic Text. The Peshitta does not support the Masoretic Text in 3:10 but follows the Septuagint. As Roberts observes, the later tradition tended to strengthen universalism rather than restrict it, which is the opposite of what Schenker’s hypothesis requires. The study therefore adopts the Masoretic Text as the base text and renders verse 9 as “pure speech”, reflecting the conclusion that the singular ‘śāpâ’ denotes language rather than the physical lip. In verse 10 it keeps ‘my suppliants, the daughter of my dispersed’ as the subject in apposition and renders ‘ʿătāray’ as ‘those who entreat me’ rather than ‘those who serve me’. It further argues that the opposition between an Israelite and a universal horizon is resolved at the interpretive level, since the Masoretic Text itself embeds universality in the plural ‘ʿammîm (עַמִּים)’