under the reign
of the Messiah, be carried out in such a manner that idea and reality
shall fully coincide. The covenant-people is to appear in its full
dignity.--In the second hemistich of the verse, the reading requires
first to be established. Instead of the reading [Hebrew: iqrav] which
is found in the text, and which is the third pers. Sing. with the
Suffix, several MSS. (compare _De Rossi_), have the third pers. Plur.
[Hebrew: iqrav]. Several controversial writers, such as _Raim.
Martini_, _Pug. Fid._ p. 517, and _Galatinus_, iii. 9, p. 126, (The
Jews of our time assert that here Jeremiah did not say "they shall
call," [Hebrew: iqrav], as we read it, but "he shall call him,"
[Hebrew: iqrav]; and they declare this to be the sense: "This is the
name of Him who shall call him, viz., the Messiah: Our righteous God,")
declare the latter to be unconditionally correct, and assert that the
other had originated from an intentional Jewish corruption, got up for
the purpose of setting aside the divinity of the Messiah, which, to
them, was so offensive. This allegation, however, is certainly
unfounded. It is true, that some Jewish interpreters availed themselves
of the reading [Hebrew: iqrav] for the purpose stated. Thus _Rabbi
Saadias Haggaon_, according to _Abenezra_ and _Manasseh Ben Israel_,
who explain: "And this is the name by which the Lord will call him: Our
righteousness." But it by no means follows from this, that they
invented the reading; it may have existed, and they only connected
their perversion with it. That the latter was indeed the case, appears
from the circumstance that by far the greater number of Jewish
interpreters and controversialists rejected this perversion, because it
was in opposition to the accents (compare especially _Abenezra_ and
_Norzi_ on the passage), and acknowledged [Hebrew: ihvh cdqnv] to be
the name of the Messiah. The reading [Hebrew: iqrav] must be
unconditionally rejected, because it has by far the smallest external
authority in its favour. It is true, that its supporters (comp.
especially _Schulze_, _vollst. Critik der gewoehnlichen_ [Pg 418]
_Bibelausgaben_, S. 321) have endeavoured to make up for its deficiency
in manuscript authority, by appealing to the authority of the ancient
translators, all of whom, with the sole exception of the Alexandrian
version, according to them, express it. But this assertion is entirely
without foundation. The _vocabunt eum_ of _Jonathan_ and the Vul