Blue Cord

While I am on the subject of the meaning of words, I thought I would mention a neologism that really annoys me.  This is the word factoid, which is used by print and video media on a frequent basis.

The meaning that is given to this word is “a small fact.”  You will hear it when a commentator wants to insert a tidbit of information about the subject at hand.  You will read it as a header in a sidebox providing additional information in articles.  You will see it scroll across the news feed at the bottom of CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and a host of other channels.

The problem is, the meaning “a small fact” is fundamentally wrong from an etymological standpoint.  If we wanted to create a word that meant “a small fact,” that would be factette.  This is because -ette is one of the diminutive  suffixes in English.  The suffix -oid, however, means “resembling, having the appearance of.”  We use it in words like android (”something resembling a human”) and asteroid (”something like a star”).  The suffix -oid implies that something appears to be the object in question, but is actually something else.  An asteroid looks like a star to the naked eye, but it is not a star.  An android looks human, but is a machine.

A facoid, therefore, would be something that seems to be a fact, but is actually not.  A facoid is in fact a lie or at the very least something inaccurate.  This is the meaning that is given by the American Heritage Dictionary: “A piece of unverified or inaccurate information that is presented in the press as factual, often as part of a publicity effort, and that is then accepted as true because of frequent repetition.”  The dictionary lists “a small fact” as a problematic usage of this word.

One wonders, of course, why we need a word to mean “a little fact” anyway.  After all, a fact is a fact, no matter how small.  Truth has no size.

My brother and I share many things in common: same mother and father, same odd sense of humor, same enjoyment of tuba music, etc. We even managed to defend our dissertations on the same day.

We also share an enjoyment of language. We like discovering obscure words and careful turns of phrase. My brother, for instance, recently composed a piece of music entitled Triskaidekaphile (I will leave it to my readers to look up the word themselves). One thing we both particularly love is correct usage of words in English. And if we can catch each other using a word incorrectly . . .

hat is why I was overjoyed this week to learn two word pairs that I have heretofore been using incorrectly. I don’t mind finding out I am wrong as long as I learn something in the process. So, I thought I would share these word pairs with my readers so they can correct any of their own deficiencies in English usage.

The first pair is enormity and enormous. I thought these two words both meant “big,” the former being a noun and the latter an adjective. But listening to NPR this week, I learned otherwise. Enormous does in fact mean “big.” Enormity, however, does not. Enormity refers to something that is monstrous or outrageous. Although the two are frequently confused in writing and speaking, most grammarians consider them to have distinct meanings.

The second word pair is singular and single. While both can refer to something that is solitary - particularly in grammar - that meaning is far down the list of dictionary entries for singular. Singular actually refers to something that is exceptional or remarkable.

Rest assured I will be checking students papers to see if these are used correctly from now on. Of course, if one of them can manage to work the phrase “the singular enormity of his single enormous crime” into a paper, I’m sure some extra credit would be forthcoming.

The AP is reporting in an article carried by Yahoo! that archaeologists in Jerusalem have uncovered 100 meters of a tunnel that was built during the Second Temple period.  Although originally designed as a drainage channel, the tunnel was used by many Jews to escape from Jerusalem during the Roman seige in 70 CE.  The archaeologists seem to draw this conclusion by connecting the tunnel with one mentioned by Josephus in The Wars of the Jews.  The tunnel seems to run from the Temple Mount to the Kidron Valley.

Hat tip: Charles Halton at Awilum.

About this time last year, I did a series of posts reviewing A Farewell to the Yahwist?, a book the presented a number of papers from the Pentateuch sections at SBL meetings over the past several years.  Last month the Review of Biblical Literature published J. Harold Ellens review of the same book.

Ellen’s review provides a good summary of the main question that is being addressed in the book.   The six main essays deal with many of the problems raised by Rendtorff, especially the question of whether the main Pentateuchal traditions (ancestors, exodus, Sinai, wilderness, and conquest) were joined together prior to the work of P.  If the answer is no, we can discard the theology of a Yahwist (hence the title of the book).

I encourage those interested in source criticism to check out the review, but more importantly to check out the book itself. If you haven’t kept up with recent scholarship concerning the Pentateuch, you may be surprised to learn how much you learned about source criticism in college or seminary is obsolete.

No, this is not an updated version of The Giving Tree. Instead, the Giving Kiosk is a new way to make contributions to your church or other institution (usually non-profit organizations).

The Giving Kiosk is a product of a company called Secure Give. It is an ATM-like machine that some churches are placing in their foyers or parish halls. It allows parishioners to make donations to the church using their debit or credit cards. They then receive a slip that they may place in the offering basket during the service. The kiosks can be customized to include the church’s name, logo, and any imagery the church wants.

My reaction to this product is only slightly better than it is to the “peel-and-commune” cups that contain an individually wrapped wafer and grape juice for the Lord’s Supper. In both cases, the theology of the act is being ignored in favor of convenience. Those who are using the kiosk argue that it makes donations to the church easier. People no longer have to remember to bring cash or checks. This makes the kiosks an ideal solution, since most people carry their debit and credit cards with them.

If the purpose of giving to the church was simply to raise money, then I would have no problem with this. But our tithes and offerings are not donations to the church. They are, instead, offerings that we give to God.  Our giving is an act of worship.  We are merely returning to God a portion of what God has given us.   And just like the sacrifices and offerings of the OT, it is meant to be done as an act of worship.

The Giving Kiosk almost completely removes the giving from the worship service.  Instead, giving becomes something you do on your way in or out.  It becomes more like buying a ticket to the service.  It does provide you with a receipt that can be placed in the offering basket during the service, which means the act of giving is not completely separated from worship.

When our act of giving becomes more about the church raising money and less about worshiping God, we are entering some dangerous territory.  Jesus cleansed the temple of the money changers, even though the money changers probably made worship more convenient for the people. The temple also had vendors who would sell you a spotless animal.  Surely it was more convenient to buy an animal at the temple than have to bring one all the way from home.  I am not saying that the issues here are exactly the same, but I still think the comparison highlights some of the problems with the Giving Kiosk.

Finally, it seems to me that making worship more convenient is not necessarily a good thing. If it were, drive-thru communion would make a lot more sense.  But worship is work.  Liturgy literal means “the work of the people.” We are supposed to be bringing our best to God, not what is most convenient, and our best and our easiest are seldom the same.  Having to remember to bring money to church means that our act of giving is not a spur of the moment donation but something that we have thought through and planned.  Our giving doesn’t begin and end at church; it is something that we had to think about as part of our preparation for worship.

I think convenience is a good thing.  I am much happier having to carry paper currency to church than I would be having to wrangle an animal into the sanctuary.  But too much convenience lessens the worship experience.  Our culture thrives on microwaves and fast food, but our worship doesn’t have to acquiesce to that model.