The Masoretic Text Vindicated in Psalm 145

Although nun (נ) is omitted from the acrostic, there is no missing verse

1) The insertion of Psalm 145:13b in the ESV and NIV

It is claimed that there is missing nun (נ) verse in the Hebrew acrostic Psalm 145. Although the verse is also missing from Rahlf’s Septuagint, it is included in Swete’s Septuagint (as verse 14a rather than 3b):

πιστὸς Κύριος ἐν τοῖς λόγοις αὐτοῦ, καὶ ὅσιος ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ

This supposed verse is featured in the ESV and the NIV. In the ESV it is bracketed, whereas in the NIV, it is considered as being within the main text, reading:

The Lord is trustworthy in all he promises
and faithful in all he does

The accompanying NIV footnote reads:

One manuscript of the Masoretic Text, Dead Sea Scrolls and Syriac (see also Septuagint); most manuscripts of the Masoretic Text do not have the last two lines of verse 13.

The ESV has a similar footnote:

These two lines are supplied by one Hebrew manuscript, Septuagint, Syriac (compare Dead Sea Scroll)

~~~

2) The missing nun consistent with Hebrew grammar in the rest of Scripture

The claim is set out by the NET Bible in a note:

Psalm 145 is an acrostic psalm, with each successive verse beginning with a successive letter of the Hebrew alphabet. However, in the traditional Hebrew (Masoretic) text of Psalm 145 there is no verse beginning with the letter nun. One would expect such a verse to appear as the fourteenth verse, between the (מ) (mem) and (ס) (samek) verses.

Several ancient witnesses, including one medieval Hebrew manuscript, the Qumran scroll from cave 11, the LXX, and the Syriac, supply the missing (נ) (nun) verse, which reads as follows: “The Lord is reliable in all his words, and faithful in all his deeds.” One might paraphrase this as follows: “The Lord’s words are always reliable; his actions are always faithful.” Scholars are divided as to the originality of this verse. L. C. Allen argues for its inclusion on the basis of structural considerations (Psalms 101-150 [WBC], 294-95), but there is no apparent explanation for why, if original, it would have been accidentally omitted.

The psalm may be a partial acrostic, as in Pss 25 and 34 (see M. Dahood, Psalms [AB], 3:335). The glaring omission of the nun line would have invited a later redactor to add such a line.

Both in the NET’s explanation of the supposedly missing נ verse, and also in its decision to leave it out, we see a justification already of its absence.

Franz Delitzsch attributes its absence to the freedom of the writer with regards to the English language, citing evidence in Lamentations also for differences between what we may expect due to strict grammatical order or patterns, and what we actually read in Scripture:

Κατὰ στοιχεῖον, observes Theodoret, καὶ οὗτος ὁ ὕμνος σύγκειται. The Psalm is distichic, and every first line of the distich has the ordinal letter; but the distich Nun is wanting.

The Talmud (loc cit.) is of opinion that it is because the fatal נפלה (Amos 5:2), which David, going on at once with סומך ה לכל־הנפלים, skips over, begins with Nun. On the other hand, Ewald, Vaihinger, and Sommer, like Grotius, think that the Nun-strophe has been lost.

The LXX (but not Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, nor Jerome in his translation after the original text) gives such a strophe, perhaps out of a MS (like the Dublin Cod. Kennicot, 142) in which it was supplied: Πιστὸς (נאמן as in Psalm 111:7) κύριος ἐν (πᾶσι) τοῖς λόγοις αὐτοῦ καὶ ὅσιος ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ (according with Psalm 145:17, with the change only of two words of this distich).

Hitzig is of opinion that the original Nun-strophe has been welded into Psalm 141:1-10; but only his clairvoyant-like historical discernment is able to amalgamate Psalm 145:6 of this Psalm with our Psalm 145.

We are contented to see in the omission of the Nun-strophe an example of that freedom with which the Old Testament poets are wont to handle this kind of forms. Likewise there is no reason apparent for there fact that Jeremiah has chosen in Lamentations 2:1, Lamentations 3:1, and Lamentations 4:1 of the Lamentations to make the Ajin-strophe follow the Pe-strophe three times, whilst in Lamentations 1:1 it precedes it.

Yet the most helpful treatment I have come across on this matter is an article by Mr. Larry Brigden of the Trinitarian Bible Society.

Brigden notes that a missing letter in a Hebrew acrostic is no sure proof of missing verses, as he explains:

Other acrostic Psalms in the Hebrew Old Testament are 9 and 10, 25, 34, 37, 111, 112, 119. The last three of these Psalms, 111, 112 and 119, are all complete and show no irregularities in the acrostic pattern. Each letter of the Hebrew alphabet is present, beginning a half verse (in the Hebrew) in Psalms 111 and 112, and a set of eight verses in Psalm 119. The other acrostic Psalms, 9 and 10, 25, 34, 37, 145 (all except 10 definitely ascribed to David), show irregularities in the acrostic pattern. Psalms 9 and 10 display the greatest degree of irregularity, omitting seven letters; Psalm 25 omits two letters, doubles up on another letter and adds an extra letter at the end; Psalm 34 omits a letter and adds an extra letter at the end; and Psalm 37 omits a letter. Hence, the irregularity in Psalm 145 is not at all unusual. As is evident, the Psalmist, in choosing the acrostic pattern, does not necessarily bind himself absolutely to it, but does at times vary from it.

~~~

3) The rhetorical use of the omitted nun

Brigden highlights the Scriptural use of the Hebrew grammar to illustrate and underline rhetorical points:

The last part of Psalm 145 begins at verse 14 and continues to the end of the Psalm, in which David praises the Lord for His condescending love. The Psalmist had to decide how to begin this section. The next letter in the alphabet is נ; what word would this evoke for the Psalmist? נפל ('fall’ or ‘fail’) perhaps? But the Lord does not ‘fall’ or ‘fail’. It is men who ‘fall’ and ‘fail’. So what does the Psalmist do? He makes a striking point by omitting the נ verse and then writing the next verse, the ס (samekh) verse, as:

סומך יהוה לכל הנפלים

(‘The LORD upholdeth all that fall’)

Every Hebrew reader of the Psalm will notice something striking at this point: it is the Psalmist himself who ‘falls’ (נפל) in the omission of the נ verse. What more graphic way to highlight the frailty of men and the condescending love of God than by omitting the נ verse and following with a verse that speaks of the Lord upholding ‘all that fall’ (לכל הנפלים)? The structure of the Psalm ‘chimes’, as it were, to the thought expressed by the words of the Psalm.

Thus, the omission of the נ verse is deliberate and for an intended effect, an effect that relies on a slight variation from an otherwise closely followed acrostic form.

The Masoretic Text is vindicated here — due to both the propriety of adjusting the Hebrew from a strict grammatical order, and indeed the purposeful rhetorical use of removing the nun.