In the Hebrew Aleppo, Leningrad And Cairo codices, there is a separation mark between Yahweh and Our Righteousness. This is how it looks: ״יהוה | צדקנו״, Separating God’s name from Our Righteousness. But, there are some English versions that say “The Lord Our Righteousness”, but I don’t know why. There is a Hebrew version online that says “the LORD Our Righteousness”, but the website says it’s based on the Leningrad codex, but the Leningrad codex has the separation mark. There is another version which is based on the Aleppo codex and “The manuscripts close to it”, and it also does not have the separation mark, but if we go to the Aleppo codex online, I think it has it. What is true and how? “The LORD will call him ‘Our Righteousness’” or “He shall be called: the LORD our Righteousness”?
The matter is understood and completed! Here is a link to a picture from the Dead Sea Scrolls, containing the end of Jeremiah 33:16, where it says יהוה צד (It’s not completed) without the separating line! https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/image/B-360205 Praise God for revealing his truth! Amen!
The basic conundrum with translating "וְזֶה־שְּׁמֹו אֲֽשֶׁר־יִקְרְאֹו יְהוָה צִדְקֵֽנוּ׃" as "and this his name which the LORD shall call him, 'OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS'", is that, in translating its parallel according to the same reasoning, that is, from "וְזֶה אֲשֶׁר־יִקְרָא־לָהּ יְהוָה צִדְקֵֽנוּ"[Jer 33:16] to "and this is what the LORD shall call her, 'OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS'", one should find the conclusion of the second to be without mention of the first, namely, the Messiah. Yet because the two verses are related by context, they thus must needs be converged, which thing is made semantically impossible(besides also grammatically inconsistent) if the second should infer the righteousness of the church apart from Christ, and the first, the righteousness of Christ apart from God[Exd 9:27, Psa 103:6,116:5]. Given also that they were apparently separated by several years(Jer 25:1,32:1-2,33:1) it should not seem so obvious that the second was not left to stand on its own, and as such, should have allowed for the publication of such a non-Davidic interpretation of 'righteousness'(cf. 2 Samuel 7).