We're Closing in on a Solution to the Original Spelling of the Name 'John' in the Gospel

Are many of my readers old enough to remember the way computers were envisioned in the 1960's? They were these machines to whom the operator would pose questions and then the answer would come back almost immediately afterwards albeit in a strangely artificial robotic voice.

I am lucky enough to have such a source of information at my disposal. His name is Rory Boid of Monash University, one of the foremost Semitic language experts in the world. I am able to ask him any question I want about a particular word or phrase in the gospel and he will give me an authoritative answer as to whether it might have a root in Aramaic or Hebrew (of course in the last year he has gotten rather sick of my endless inquiries and encouraged me to polish up my mastery of these languages).

It was Dr. Boid who assured me that Yonah could be a diminutive form of the name 'John.' This was important because the early acrostic at the beginning of the Diatessaron necessitates that in the oldest traditions the Aramaic original behind name 'John' must have been understood to be four letters long and end with a he (h):

Matthew the elect, whose symbol is M, Mark the chosen, whose symbol is R, Luke the approved, whose symbol is Q, and John the beloved, whose symbol is H.

This acrostic is found in both the Old Latin and the Borgian version of the 'gospel harmony' which necessitates it going back to a common source (late second - fourth centuries?).

Notice that mem is the first letter of the name 'Mattai' (Matthew), resh is the second letter of Mark in Aramaic (mRqs, mRqa etc.), Qof the third letter of Luke and as such by the pattern exhibited here, he (H) must fit into an Aramaic form of the name John. The only possibility that works is the diminutive form of Yukhanan - viz. Yonah.

It is interesting to note that by Polycarp's reckoning, John was a very old man at the turn of the second century. Let's say he was in his seventies. This would mean that he was a child disciple of Jesus (as Origen and countless others maintain) and thus the diminutive form of 'John' makes perfect sense.

I am especially intrigued by the 'sign of Jonah' reference as the undoubted Aramaic original word behind 'sign' would be siman. Siman in Aramaic means 'mark, sign, omen' etc. Not only do I think that 'Simon Magus' - 'magic sign' - is a development of this reference I think the whole reference goes back to LGM 1, that heretical baptism practice.

Why does the name 'siman' suggest this?

Because it has another common use in Jewish Aramaic. As Jastrow notes it is also used in the sense of:

the organ the cutting of which is an indication that the animal has been slaughtered according to the ritual

We can transfer this sense of 'siman' in the heretical gospel to mean the thing which indicated that 'little John' had been perfected or had been redeemed.

Some of Jastrow's examples for siman's employment in this manner are worth examining:

x is made ritually fit for eating by the cutting of either of the organs [Hull 27b]

x acquires herself (becomes free) on showing signs of puberty [Kidd. 16a]

a man servant does not go out free on reaching puberty [ibid]

the distinguishing marks of cleanliness in animals [Hull. III 6]

to make it obligatory to cut both the organs [ibid 27b]

The point is that if Dr. Boid agrees to my reconstruction I think there is evidence IN THE GOSPEL that a now 'excised' Marcionite baptism ritual associated with 'John Mark' immediately PRECEDED this reference in the original gospel.

Will let everyone know what the 'computer' tells me ...