More Proof that the Original Spelling of 'John' in the Earliest Manuscripts was Rooted in

Tischendorf's Codex A marginal note: The Jewish (Gospel has) "son of John." (Matt.xvi.17) Nicholson adds "the name Jona of Simon's father is not the same as Jonah, but is a contraction of Jochanan, John. In all other places where the name of Simon's father occurs (John i.43, xxi 15, 16,17) recent editors rightly read 'son of John.'

But surely this can't be the end of it. There are of course other references to this contracted form of John are known to occur in the 'Jewish gospel' such as:

And he turned and said unto Simon his disciple who was sitting by him: Simon, son of Joanna, it is easier for a camel to enter in by a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.[Origen Comm. Matt. xv]

But more importantly, the question we have to ask ourselves now is whether it is likely that the original manuscripts read yona ONLY for Simon's father John? I certainly don't think so. The point then is that there is a precedent for the idea that 'John' in the original gospel took a form related to יון.