Psalm 145 is an acrostic Psalm, which means that it is arranged alphabetically, according to the letters of the Hebrew alphabet.
The Masoretic Text for Psalm 145 does not have a verse that begins with the Hebrew letter nun, however. The Septuagint of Psalm 145 has what may have been the nun-verse
that would later drop out. It states: “The LORD is faithful in his
words, and holy in all his works” (Brenton’s translation). According to
Leslie Allen, this also appears in the Syriac and 11QPs-a (which has
“Elohim” for God rather than “YHVH”), and E.W. Bullinger states that it
is present in the Arabic, the Ethiopic, the Vulgate, and a Hebrew
codex. Meanwhile, the Targum, apparently following what would become
the MT, lacks the nun-verse.
There is discussion within rabbinic literature about why the nun-verse
is absent from Psalm 145. I learned about this from Chaim Pearl’s “The
Theology of Psalm 145: Part II,” which appeared in the Winter 1991-1992 Jewish Bible Quarterly. This discussion is in Babylonian Talmud Berachot 4b. A reason that was advanced for why there was no nun-verse in Psalm 145 was that Psalm 145 is a positive Psalm, so it was deliberately omitting Amos 5:2, which starts with a nun. Amos 5:2 conveys a message of apparent hopelessness:
“The virgin of Israel is fallen; she shall no more rise: she is
forsaken upon her land; there is none to raise her up” (KJV). The verse
starts with the Hebrew word naphelah, “she fell.”
According to Pearl, an epilogue to the Talmudic discussion stated that David included v 14 to compensate for the absence of the nun-verse. Psalm 145:14 affirms: “The LORD upholdeth all that fall, and raiseth up all those that be bowed down” (KJV). Psalm 145:14 contains the word n-ph-l
(“fall”), yet, whereas Amos 5:2 paints a picture of Israel falling and
neither getting up nor having someone to lift her up, Psalm 145:14 says
that God supports those who fall, and raises up the bowed down.
How could the rabbis have repudiated Amos 5:2, which was God’s word?
Did they believe that God had changed his mind about permanently
casting down Israel? Did they see Amos 5:2 as hyperbole, yet they
believed that David was excluding it from Psalm 145 to avoid giving the
impression that Israel’s downfall was permanent, and to avoid spoiling
the positive, upbeat Psalm of praise that is Psalm 145?
What evidentialism isn't
43 minutes ago