The Apostles were Jews.. The Jewish Midrash which can still be observed in the Talmud uses verses in the context of an interpretation adding thus the words of interpretation in the verses.
Apparently the Jews who translated the septuagint translated only the Torah/Pentateuch(the first five books of the Bible which are ascribed to Moses).. The rest of the books were translated in the following houndreds of years, even on the times or Christians and by early Christians themselves apparently..
Yes that's true, the letter of Aristeas clearly states that the 72 Jerusalem scholars only translated the Torah. The rest of the books were translated later, some before Christ and some after.
Apparently not, seeing that many of the other books are quoted in their Septuagint version in the NT.
There are many that agree with other OT versions including the Masoretic text. Also "quote" is not the accurate term to use, to "quote" something means to copy the text word-for-word verbatim, there are very few instances of this in the NT, most the "quotes" are actually paraphrases. No one sat down writing their Gospel or Epistle with a text in front of them to copy from, they wrote down what the knew from memory, often paraphrasing the verse for clarification.
The pendulum swings back and forth between the LXX and MT. One really cannot say if one or the other is older.
Yes we can. The LXX is older, but it is a translation while the Masoretic text is not. What can't be said with absolute certainty is which one more accurately represents the original Hebrew autograph as both have errors. What Christian and Jewish apologists overlook but what textual critics take into consideration is the possibility that the LXX and MT were not translated/standardized from the same Hebrew text.
Wikipedia isn't infallible, you know. Get better sources.
How about the source Wikipedia is referring to:
Karen H. Jobes and Moises Silva (2001). Invitation to the Septuagint. Paternoster Press. ISBN 1-84227-061-3.
Life after death: a history of the afterlife in the religions of the West (2004), Anchor Bible Reference Library, Alan F. Segal, p.363
Gilles Dorival, Marguerite Harl, and Olivier Munnich, La Bible grecque des Septante: Du judaïsme hellénistique au christianisme ancien (Paris: Cerfs, 1988), p.111
"[...] die griechische Bibelübersetzung, die einem innerjüdischen Bedürfnis entsprang [...] [von den] Rabbinen zuerst gerühmt (..) Später jedoch, als manche ungenaue Übertragung des hebräischen Textes in der Septuaginta und Übersetzungsfehler die Grundlage für hellenistische Irrlehren abgaben, lehte man die Septuaginta ab." Verband der Deutschen Juden (Hrsg.), neu hrsg. von Walter Homolka, Walter Jacob, Tovia Ben Chorin: Die Lehren des Judentums nach den Quellen; München, Knesebeck, 1999, Bd.3, S. 43ff
It's not my concern.
the thing is Jewish Midrash often merges two verses into one.. like f.e in Matt 1:22 and the passages of Heb..
the early post apostolic christians modified the text from the OT accordingly to the NT.
anyway the 70(72) apparently translated only the first five books of Moses.
why is the whole Greek OT considered so valuable than?
Yes now we're getting somewhere.
Sorry but that's actually true. The footnotes and side notes I've seen in some Greek manuscripts are enlightening to say the least. Also in most codices the NT is attached to the LXX and that says something right there because the Greek NT and LXX are supposed to be completely separate works. Polemics appears to the be chief reason for the "corrections" to both texts, though the Masoretic isn't free from this either and that's why my favourite OT version is the Peshitta OT because it doesn't have this polemical history behind it, it is a Jewish translation that was accepted by the Syriac Church and was used by both Jews and Christians.
This site gives the quotes from both the Septuagint and the MT that are in the New Testament:
Now if only he would include all the other OT versions...