Why is Psalm 145:13 longer in some Bible translations? Readers comparing versions such as the NIV and KJV may notice that one Bible includes an additional line about the Lord’s faithfulness while another moves directly from verse 13 to verse 14.
The difference exists because ancient manuscripts do not all preserve Psalm 145:13 in exactly the same form. Most manuscripts of the Masoretic Hebrew text omit an expected line beginning with the Hebrew letter nun, while the Dead Sea Scrolls and several ancient versions preserve a line in that position. Modern translations differ because translators evaluate that textual evidence differently.
The issue becomes especially interesting because Psalm 145 is an alphabetic acrostic.
Why is a nun line expected in Psalm 145?
Psalm 145 is arranged so that successive lines begin with successive letters of the Hebrew alphabet.
Around Psalm 145:13–14, however, the standard Masoretic text moves from a line beginning with mem to one beginning with samekh.
The Hebrew letter nun, which normally comes between them, is missing.
The sequence therefore looks like this:
Mem → [Nun expected] → Samekh
That gap naturally raises the question of whether a line disappeared during transmission.
The acrostic pattern, however, does not settle the question by itself. Biblical acrostics are not always perfectly complete, so an absent letter does not automatically prove that scribes lost a line.
This is why manuscript evidence matters.
What manuscript evidence exists for the extra line?
An additional nun line is preserved in several ancient textual witnesses.
Most importantly, a Hebrew form of Psalm 145 containing a nun line appears in the Great Psalms Scroll from Qumran, commonly identified as 11Q5 or 11QPsᵃ.
The line also has parallels in the ancient Greek Septuagint and the Syriac tradition. The NIV textual note additionally cites one manuscript of the Masoretic Text that contains the additional material, while noting that most Masoretic manuscripts do not.
This evidence establishes something important:
The extra line is not a modern invention. A form of Psalm 145 containing a nun line circulated in antiquity.
However, the ancient witnesses do not all preserve an identical sentence in exactly the same form.
The Qumran Hebrew line corresponds closely to the additional line familiar from modern translations, expressing that God is faithful in His words and gracious in His deeds. Other ancient witnesses preserve related wording.
That means it is more accurate to say that several ancient textual traditions preserve a corresponding nun line than to imply that every witness contains precisely the same wording.
The Great Psalms Scroll also differs from the later Masoretic form of Psalm 145 in other respects. Its presence at Qumran therefore proves the antiquity of this textual form, but it does not automatically prove that every reading in that manuscript represents the earliest form of the psalm.
Readers interested in how Qumran manuscripts can preserve ancient psalmic material without automatically settling every textual or canonical question can also see PsalmWisdom’s study of Psalm 151 and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Why do some Bible translations include the line while others omit it?
The difference reflects different judgments about the surviving textual evidence.
The KJV follows the Hebrew textual tradition in which the nun line is absent.
This should not be explained simply by saying the KJV translators did not have the Dead Sea Scrolls. Ancient Greek and Syriac witnesses containing a corresponding line existed long before the Qumran discoveries.
What the Dead Sea Scrolls added was something especially valuable: ancient Hebrew evidence that a form of Psalm 145 with a nun line circulated many centuries before the medieval Masoretic manuscripts.
Modern translation committees can weigh that Hebrew evidence alongside the Septuagint, Syriac, Masoretic manuscripts, the acrostic structure, and other textual considerations.
Some translations therefore include the additional line in the main text.
Others omit it but mention it in a footnote.
Still others mark it in a way that signals textual uncertainty.
These differences are not best described as one translation “adding Scripture” while another “removes Scripture.”
They reflect a genuine textual question about which ancient form most likely preserves the earlier wording of Psalm 145.
Was the nun line originally part of Psalm 145?
This is the point where certainty should stop.
One explanation is that the nun line originally belonged to Psalm 145 and disappeared from the textual tradition that eventually became dominant in the Masoretic manuscripts.
Several pieces of evidence make that possibility attractive.
The alphabetic pattern expects a nun line, an ancient Hebrew manuscript contains one, and related wording appears in other early textual traditions.
Another explanation is that Psalm 145 originally had an intentionally incomplete acrostic and that a nun line was supplied later to fill the obvious alphabetical gap.
Scholars who favor this view point out that imperfect acrostics occur elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible and that the wording of the added line resembles language already found elsewhere in Psalm 145.
In particular, part of the additional wording closely echoes language later in the psalm, which has led some scholars to consider whether the line may have developed from existing liturgical or poetic language.
For that reason, the Dead Sea Scrolls do not settle the question by themselves.
- They show that the additional line is ancient.
- They show that it existed in Hebrew.
- They show that it was not created by modern translators.
But they do not make the originality of that line undisputed.
The most careful conclusion is therefore this:
Psalm 145:13 is longer in some Bible translations because ancient textual traditions preserve an additional nun line that is absent from most Masoretic manuscripts. The line is unquestionably ancient, but scholars still debate whether it belonged to the earliest form of Psalm 145 or was added early to complete the acrostic.
That ancient textual difference is what modern readers are seeing when one Bible contains the extra line and another does not.
