In her latest blog post Diana Agorio has made several claims that are unfounded, Unfortunately, since she will erase anything I write there, I will respond to her here.
I'd like to begin by taking her suppositions a step further. In Akkadian, the word for merman is kalīlu.
Now, I can't help but noticing the similarity between Kaliilu and Kal El, the Kryptonian name for Superman. A kaliilu was considered a divine figure and there was a feminine form, kaliltu. Kal El, as Superman, had godlike powers and there was a Supergirl too. It should be obvious to everyone that the origins of the Superman myth can be traced to ancient Akkad. In fact, if you look closely at the S on Superman's shirt, it seems to be a stylized fish.
Of similar, nonsensical etymology, the heir to Moses was Joshua son of Nun. Diana has already pointed out that Joshua is cognate with Jesus (it's a little more complicated than that, but she is almost right). What few people realize, however, is that Nun is the Aramaic term for fish. Fish live in water, Jesus was baptized in water, hence the story of Joshua obviously is a precursor to the Jesus story. Wow, I feel dirty doing that. In fact, if I did it on a blackboard, I'd be doing a spoof of Glenn Beck.
Unfortunately, Diana does exactly the same thing. In general, it is related to her failure to be competent in Semitic languages. She comments on the languages, but does not know them, so silly mistakes get made. For example, she writes, and I quote:
Berossos retold myths about the fishy healers in the character of Oannes. Oannes was
fish-tailed prophet, who taught alongside waterways and did not eat
meat. Oannes showed up in the Levant, where he was conflated with the
Canaanite god, Dagan.
In fact, she is basing this on an obscure etymology, which is quite mistaken. What she is doing is basing her theory on the notion that the etymology of the god Dagon comes from the root DG, which indeed means fish in Hebrew. In fact, that's an ancient etymology and it is false. The root (all Semitic words have roots) is actually DGN, which means "grain." The fish etymology, while quite old, is incorrect.
Next,. she writes:
He also shows up in the Old Testament under a few guises, with Jonah being the most obvious. Oannes and Jonah are the same
name and Jonah was a prophet with a fish tale. Oannes is also the same
name as John, who taught alongside the river and did not eat meat.
Note that she is very careful not to say that Jonah and John are the same, but simply implies it. "Oannes = Jonah" and "Oannes = John" (a = b and c = b) ergo Jonah = John (a = c). They even sound similar. Unfortunately, nothing could be farther from the truth. Because of roots, we know that Jonah and John are completely unrelated.
First the Jonah bit. The word Jonah (יונה) in Hebrew does not have any relationship with fish gods or kaliilu. It actually means a dove or a pigeon. In fact, if you want to connect it to water, its first appearance in the Bible is in Genesis 8:8, after the Ark has rested, וישלח את היונה
, "And he [Noah] sent the dove ..." Fish, bird, I get 'em confused all the time.
In contrast, the name John is actually an anglicization of the Hebrew Yohanan (יוחנן), and the equivalent of Ivan (Russian), Sean (Irish), Johann (German), Evan (Welsh), Jean (French), Jan (Polish), Janos (Hungarian), Juan (Spanish), Giovanni (Italian), Yahya (Arabic), etc., in different languages. Its etymological root is H N N, which means grace or kindness. It has nothing to do with doves, birds, fish, etc. In fact, the closest name of female in the Bible is Hannah, which comes from the same root, and has evolved into the English Anne. It was simply a very common name at the time. Some examples are Hasmonean king John Hyrcanus who lived about 100 years before Jesus, John of Giscala (a major leader of the Jewish Revolt), Yohanan (John) Ben Zakkai (rabbi who reformed Judaism at the time of the Destruction of the Temple), Yohanan the Shoemaker (Jewish sage, died. c. 150), John son of Zebedee the Apostle, etc., etc.As such, Diana's claim that:
There could have been a real person called John executed by Herod. But, the
reason he was called John was because of his type of ministry. He was a
prophet of John, rather than being the John.
is pure nonsense.