Psalm 145:13 — the acrostic's missing line
The nun line is missing in the received Hebrew text because Reading B skips from mem to samekh, while Reading A preserves a nun line in other witnesses. The evidence records both the gap and the added line.
What the APB prints.
Every witness, on the record.
What a blind committee did here.
The APB's translation committee works blind: it is never told it is translating the Bible, never given a book name or a verse number, and it never sees the witnesses above. Whatever it did at this verse, it did on the language alone — and its record is public.
The blind committee record has no rationale note matching this crux, and the pericope audit verdict is ‘clean’. The APB prints the kingdom and dominion sentence at the crux verse, followed by a line about upholding those who are falling. Its printed text does not display a separate nun line.
The case for each reading.
If the line belongs
The case for Reading A rests on two witnesses that preserve a line where the alphabetic sequence would place nun. The Dead Sea Scrolls witness 11QPsᵃ carries the line in Hebrew and expands it with a statement about God being gracious in all his works. The Septuagint likewise includes a Greek line saying that the Lord is faithful in his words. These two witnesses agree that there is material between the mem line and the following samekh line, even though their wording is not identical to the Hebrew scroll’s wording. On this reading, the missing line in the received text is a gap within an otherwise line-by-line alphabetic arrangement.
If the gap is original
The case for Reading B begins with the Masoretic Text as transmitted in the Westminster Leningrad Codex. Its text has the mem line about the kingdom and then proceeds to samekh; it does not transmit a nun line. The consonantal verse text supplied here contains the kingdom and dominion wording, with no additional line inserted between it and the next line. Reading B therefore describes the form preserved by this witness: the alphabetic sequence moves from mem to samekh. The presence of a line in 11QPsᵃ and the Septuagint shows that another form exists, but it does not remove the fact that the Masoretic Text preserves the gap.
The supplied evidence shows a real contrast: one witness has no nun line, while two preserve a line there. It does not settle why the forms differ or whether one form should be preferred. The variant changes the presence or absence of a line about faithfulness; it does not by itself decide doctrine, since doctrines rest on many passages.
Asked plainly.
Why does the alphabet skip a letter here?
The Masoretic Text moves from mem to samekh and transmits no nun line. 11QPsᵃ and the Septuagint instead preserve a line in that position.
What does the missing line say in the witnesses that have it?
11QPsᵃ says that God is faithful in his words and gracious in all his works. The Septuagint says that the Lord is faithful in his words.
Did the blind committee leave a note on this line?
No rationale note matches this crux. The pericope audit verdict is ‘clean’, and the APB prints the kingdom-and-dominion sentence without a separate nun line.
More places where the manuscripts argue.
Witness readings for critical editions are quoted from the SBLGNT apparatus (CC BY 4.0); Hebrew text from the Westminster Leningrad Codex (Open Scriptures Hebrew Bible). Readings of ancient manuscripts and versions are cited as published scholarly fact with their sources linked above. Nothing on this page declares a winner — the evidence is the point.
Weigh it yourself.
The registry doesn't tell you which reading is true. It puts every witness on one page, shows what a blind committee did with the same language, and leaves the verdict where it belongs — with the reader.