In the book of Amos (KJV, Amos 4:1), we find the verb bring is capitalized in the middle of a sentence. This is in sharp contrast to the same verb written in v. 4 in lower case letters. Finding a verb thus capitalized seems to defy all known rules governing English capitalization in print. This specific phenomenon dates back to the Wycliffe Bible and seems to have been perpetuated in many if not all subsequent translations.

Since Bring was coupled with the place names of Bashan and Samaria in v. 1 (also capitalized), Bring as a verb seems definitely out of place. Is this simply an error in printing, or was Bring meant to be used as a noun within some form of steganography?

  • The typography, morphology, syntax, and lexical items used in English Bibles (which are, of course, always merely translations of Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew originals) represent nothing more than the translators' takes on the best way to represent something by current standards. Since "current" covers the last 5 centuries of English, this is, to say the least, a mess. Nothing in an English translation can be depended on; always consult the originals. Commented Dec 19, 2013 at 0:14
  • 2
    Everybody I know who studies Christian texts learns Koine Greek. It's like learning Arabic if you're Moslem, Hebrew if you're Jewish, or Sanskrit if you're Hindu. As the Italians say, Traduttore, traditore. Commented Dec 19, 2013 at 5:06

2 Answers 2


Hear this word, ye kine of Bashan, that are in the mountain of Samaria, which oppress the poor, which crush the needy, which say to their masters, Bring, and let us drink.

This is because it is a quote, and a quote of a sentence starts with a capital letter.

Here is a different translation.

You women of Samaria are fat cows! You mistreat and abuse the poor and needy, then you say to your husbands, “Bring us more drinks!”

4 Come to Bethel, and transgress; at Gilgal multiply transgression; and bring your sacrifices every morning, and your tithes after three years...

Here, bring is a verb, and is written in the usual manner, with lower case letters.


There are several things you might want to consider when reading the Bible:

  1. You have to understand how the Bible was written or translated.
  2. Consider reading different translations.
  3. Read the adjacent verses and not just the verse itself. Sometimes, reading the whole chapter is required.

The word bring in this verse came from the Hebrew word:



A primitive root; to go or come (in a wide variety of applications): - abide, apply, attain, X be, befall, + besiege, bring (forth, in, into, to pass), call, carry, X certainly, (cause, let, thing for) to come (against, in, out, upon, to pass), depart, X doubtless again, + eat, + employ, (cause to) enter (in, into, -tering, -trance, -try), be fallen, fetch, + follow, get, give, go (down, in, to war), grant, + have, X indeed, [in-]vade, lead, lift [up], mention, pull in, put, resort, run (down), send, set, X (well) stricken [in age], X surely, take (in), way.

The word is definitely a verb and must not be misinterpreted to something else.

  • In my own research I found that the suffix "ing" originates from the ancient Inglis or the Yinglings. As early as the 10th century bring was written as bringe or bringen, bringan so interpreted as "a bring or of or belonging to the bring. e, en, and an were suffixes anciently forming nouns in that context. If "ing" had its roots as a noun then what word did "br" originate from to form the single word we now take for granted as having always been a verb? Commented Dec 19, 2013 at 15:31
  • Anglo-Saxon or Old English had a very limited vocabulary amounting to just a few thousand words. Modern English is a compilation and refinement of those humble beginnings to form a vocabulary of well over 500,000 words. Many of these new words were formed from within the limited vocabulary of the ancient Inglish or later referred to as Anglo-Saxon. The rest were borrowed from other languages. Commented Dec 19, 2013 at 15:59
  • 1
    Over the holiday in an old Anglo-Saxon Dictionary I came across a definition for the word "Bring" that you might find interesting. Bring listed in its masculine form, came with a simple definition as an "offering"; a noun. An offering thus made must involve at least two parties. Does the creation of that word "Bring" over a millennia ago commemorate an ancient offering? Source: A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary- For the Use of Students by John R. Clark Hall, M.A. Ph.D, 2nd Edition, New York, The Macmillan Co., 1916, page 51 (Now on the internet) Commented Dec 30, 2013 at 14:22

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.