Christ mocked on the cross, source of the expression Ha-Vah

Christ mocked on the cross, source of the expression Ha-Vah

Matthew 27

And they that passed by, blasphemed him, wagging their heads, [40] And saying: Vah, thou that destroyest the temple of God, and in three days dost rebuild it: save thy own self: if thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross

Mark 15

And the inscription of his cause was written over: THE KING OF THE JEWS. [27] And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left. [28] And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith: And with the wicked he was reputed. [29] And they that passed by blasphemed him, wagging their heads, and saying: Vah, thou that destroyest the temple of God, and in three days buildest it up again; [30] Save thyself, coming down from the cross.
Cornelius a Lapide

Ver. 40. And saying, Ah! Thou that destroyest the temple of God. The word “Ah!” is a term of reproach. Shame on Thee for boasting! Thou canst destroy the temple of God and build it up in three days! Show that Thou canst do it by setting Thyself free from the cross. If Thou canst not do this small matter, how canst Thou do that greater work on the temple, that vast building?BTW, Hocus Pocus is a denigration/attack on the words of consecration in the Holy Holocaust of the Mass


HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM.

On the day before he was to suffer, he took bread in his holy and venerable hands, and with eyes raised to heaven to you, O God, his almighty Father, giving you thanks he said the blessing, broke the bread and gave it to his disciples, saying: Take this, all of you and eat of it,

FOR THIS IS MY BODY.


Etymology Dictionary

hocus-pocus (interj.)

magical formula used in conjuring, 1630s, earlier Hocas Pocas, common name of a magician or juggler (1620s); a sham-Latin invocation used by jugglers, perhaps based on a perversion of the sacramental blessing from the Mass, Hoc est corpus meum "This is my body." The first to make this speculation on its origin apparently was English prelate John Tillotson (1630-1694).
I will speak of one man ... that went about in King James his time ... who called himself, the Kings Majesties most excellent Hocus Pocus, and so was called, because that at the playing of every Trick, he used to say, Hocus pocus, tontus tabantus, vade celeriter jubeo, a dark composure of words, to blinde the eyes of the beholders, to make his Trick pass the more currantly without discovery. [Thomas Ady, "A Candle in the Dark," 1655]

Compare hiccus doccius or hiccus doctius, "formula used by jugglers in performing their feats" (1670s), also a common name for a juggler, which OED says is "conjectured to be a corruption of" Latin hicce es doctus "here is the learned man," "if not merely a nonsense formula simulating Latin." Also compare holus-bolus (adv.) "all at a gulp, all at once," which Century Dictionary calls "A varied redupl. of whole, in sham-Latin form." As a noun meaning "juggler's tricks," hocus-pocus is recorded from 1640s.
ABS well remembers that a LONG time ago William Safir (aka William Safire) in his column “On Language” in The New York Times labored to deny the obvious.

What a shock that one who was a Messias-Denier would deny the obvious.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Safire



The New York Times Archives
See the article in its original context from
July 4, 1993,

I refuse to be a patsy for the Slur Patrol.

In a recent political harangue, I noted that focus had become the vogue word in criticism, including self-criticism, of the Clinton White House. Everybody from pundits to politicians to press agents was into focusing. To put a pin into the ballooning usage, I found a reduplicating rhyme and headlined the essay "Focus Hocus-Pocus.”

This usage brought a blindsiding objection (Thinking the response from the priest was a blind sided attack reveals his  bigotry) from the Rev. John P. Mahoney of Providence College in Rhode Island. "The term hocus-pocus has an origin arising from English Protestantism as an attack on Catholic doctrine," he asserts. "Hocus-pocus was a shortening of the phrase 'Hoc est enim corpus meum,' the essential formula used in the sacrament of the eucharist. Implied here was that the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, abominated by Low-Church Anglicans, was absurd nonsense.”

Hocus-pocus may or may not have derived from the Latin words for "This is my body"; etymologists differ on the origins of what is now taken to be a term for a conjurer's quackery, and currently means "sleight of hand" or "a sham used to conceal deception." But even if this reduplication were to be rooted in centuries-old religious controversy, does that mean it must be exorcised from our vocabulary?

(YES BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE WORDS USED BY JESUS CHRIST)

"I do think one ought to avoid prejudicial terms," Father Mahoney writes, "such as this one and Jesuitical."


There is such a thing as digging too deep for prejudice. A rabbi wrote me not long ago to complain about my use of talmudic to mean "exceedingly scholarly; concentrating on a close reading and interpretation of text." As a native speaker, I know this to be one modern sense of talmudic, synonymous with the Greek-based "hermeneutic," and it does not worry me that this sense is not yet in most dictionaries; it'll get there. Hebrew scholars may dispute this, holding instead that talmudic means only "relating to the Talmud, a body of literature comprising the Mishnah and Gemara," but I think they are missing an example of the growth of the English language.

Jesuitical is in the same boat. Nobody doubts that it refers to the society founded by St. Ignatius Loyola in 1540, but it has another sense as well -- accurately reported in the 10th edition of the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary as "given to intrigue or equivocation." The Webster's New World Dictionary, third edition, notes that this crafty, duplicitous sense is a "hostile and offensive term, as used by anti-Jesuits." I think it has developed a third sense, in current use not yet reported but useful: "subtle, intricate moralistic reasoning, informed by a rigorous logic." (When I interrupted Mario Cuomo one day with "That's too Jesuitical for me," he responded "You mean Vincentian, not Jesuitical," which I am still trying to figure out.)



Because good people do not want to give offense, we have to think about slurs; at the same time, we do not want to let our language be taken hostage by those who too quickly take offense.

Take the verb to welsh, for example, an old dialect term meaning "to refuse to pay a debt." This is a clear and unmistakable slur on a nationality -- people from Wales -- as many of whom pay their debts as thee or me. Same with Jew down, meaning "to bargain"; it has a long history in the language, but it is a stereotypical slur. Don't use either one.  (As always, is it good for the Jews? is the criteria. No, it isn't good for the Jews because the expression correctly describes the Jews as carnal and materialistic and they have a long history of clipping coins and using faulty scales etc)But what about to gyp, meaning "to cheat"? It is rooted in Gypsy, a much-maligned tribe; should we strike from the language the traditional mutter, "I wuz gypped"? That's a tougher call; if the verb were gypsied, it would be a clear slur, but the clip of the first syllable fuzzes the case. I still use to be gypped to mean "to be deceived in trade," but I'm beginning to be sensitized; let's give that another look in a few years. (Hahahaha..Bigots gotta bigot..)

What about retro-slurs? These are terms that were formerly acceptable but now are considered slurs by those who offer -- indeed, demand -- a replacement. American Indian is one; an undetermined number of members of tribes ranging from the Cherokee and Algonquin to the Seminole prefer Native American. If words have meaning, all those born in America, regardless of ethnicity or color, are "native American" (as against "naturalized American"), but the seizure of the phrase by American Indians conveys a political statement that "we were here first" or even "we came from here and you came from there." They can fairly claim to be aboriginal Americans, but cannot claim to be exclusively native Americans. (Agreed. ABS is a native American because he was born in America) 


When Syracuse University chose the Onondaga Nation chief, Oren R. Lyons, to be its commencement speaker this year, the draft news release read "the first native American to deliver the commencement address at Syracuse." Chief Lyons, explaining that anyone born on this continent was a native American, asked that it be changed to "the first American Indian to deliver the commencement address at Syracuse.”

The press office gulped and made the change, feeling better about it after consulting the Associated Press Stylebook: "Avoid the use of Native American except in quotations." A.P. then tossed in a kind of anthropological explanation: "American Indians migrated to the continent over a land bridge from Asia." However, an A.P. dispatch came to the attention of John Harvith, the university's national media relations director, that used native American freely; because I am a Syracuse dropout and occasional emergency commencement speaker, Mr. Harvith asked my usage opinion.

Stick with the proud title of American Indian, Syracuse, as the Onondaga Nation chief suggests, and do not be drawn into retro-slurs or inaccurate exclusions. Prepare for objections; hold fast to the A.P. stylebook, even if A.P. does not.

The Slur Patrol, when it goes overboard, is a brigade of the Thought Police, to be resisted in the name of robust discourse. For example, I'll get mail objecting to my refusal to be a patsy, meaning "one easily fooled or intimidated"; the name Patsy is an Irish endearment, and the hypersensitive may take offense. But I'm ready: a case can be made that patsy is probably from pazzo, Italian for "fool." And when I want to be a patsy, I'll be one.