The first thing is that we can say is that Origen connects Genesis 2:23 (את ֹה־זָּחֳ קֻל ישִׁאֵ מיִכּ' for from man she was taken') with Psalms 116:13 (אָשֶּׂא שׁוּעוֹתְכּוֹס־י' I will take up the cup of salvation'). Kantor seems to think Origen was working with a Greek translation of the Scriptures because he can't distinguish between sin and shin. But Kantor seems to have forgotten that the oldest manuscripts did not distinguish between these two letters - as Samaritan Hebrew continues to do.I had nearly forgotten an additional remark I have to make about the prino-prisein and schino-schiesein difficulty; that is, that in our Scriptures there are many etymological fancies, so to call them, which in the Hebrew are perfectly suitable, but not in the Greek. It need not surprise us, then, if the translators of the History of Susanna contrived it so that they found out some Greek words, derived from the same root, which either corresponded exactly to the Hebrew form (though this I hardly think possible), or presented some analogy to it. Here is an instance of this in our Scripture. When the woman was made by God from the rib of the man, Adam says, "She shall be called woman, because she was taken out of her husband." Now the Jews say that the woman was called "Essa," and that "taken" is a translation of this word as is evident from "chos isouoth essa," which means, "I have taken the cup of salvation;" and that "is" means "man," as we see from "Hesre ais," which is, "Blessed is the man." According to the Jews, then, "is" is "man," and "essa" "woman," because she was taken out of her husband (Φησὶν ὁ Ἀδὰμ ἐπὶ τῇ γυναικὶ οἰκοδομηθείσῃ ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκ τῆς πλευρᾶς τοῦ ἀνδρός· «Αὕτη κληθήσεται γυνὴ, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς αὐτῆς ἐλήφθη.» Φασὶ δὲ οἱ Ἑβραῖοι «ἐσσὰ» μὲν καλεῖσθαι τὴν γυναῖκα· δηλοῦσθαι δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς λέξεως τὸ «ἔλαβον,» ὡς δῆλον ἐκ τοῦ· «Χῶς ἰσουὼθ ἐσσά,» ὅπερ ἑρμηνεύεται· «Ποτήριον σωτηρίου λήψομαι·» «ἴς» δὲ τὸν ἄνδρα, ὡς φανερὸν ἐκ τοῦ· «Ἐσρὴ ἀΐς,» ὅπερ ἐστί· «Μακάριος ἀνήρ.» Κατὰ μὲν οὖν Ἑβραίους ἲς καὶ ἐσσὰ ἀνδρὸς, ὅτι ἀπὸ ἲς ἀνδρὸς αὐτῆς ἐλήφθη αὕτη). It need not then surprise us if some interpreters of the Hebrew "Susanna," which had been concealed among them at a very remote date, and had been preserved only by the more learned and honest, should have either given the Hebrew word for word, or hit upon some analogy to the Hebrew forms, that the Greeks might be able to follow them. For in many other passages we can, I find traces of this kind of contrivance on the part of the translators, which I noticed when I was collating the various editions.
Pay attention to this though:
Goes a long way to make the case for the origin of the nomen sacrum ΙΣ coupled also with:«ἴς» δὲ τὸν ἄνδρα
Philo – that איש was part of the name given to Jacob from this ‘stranger’ – Ἰσραὴλ = ‘ish ra’ah [or ro’eh] ‘El, “a man seeing God” (Ἰσ = אִישׁ). Justin’s is slightly different but assumes the presence of אִישׁ even though the whole idea is etymologically unsound.2 Samuel 4:5 איש בשת = Ις-βοσθε
If there was a theological understanding that 'Jesus' and 'Christ' were separate beings and 'Jesus' was the heavenly god and 'Christ' the earthly messiah who dies on the Cross, Origen's understanding of a cosmic man ΙΣ is the most likely solution IMHO.