I am not convinced that Martyr and Origen are misreporting. Since the words "wood" or "tree" do appear in these verses, then how can we be certain that some Jews were not deliberately altering such references in some places, such as in commentaries, in transitions, and even in Hebrew scrolls.

Making a claim that such readings do not appear in the DSS are irrelevant: we should expect to find the correct readings in the DSS, since the scrolls (at least mainly) date BC. We would only find the evidence of the tampering after it occurred, that is, in the period from around the end of the Apostles to before the beginning of the Masoretes. Thus, the Masoretical text would take into it some corruptions, that the correct readings would also be present.

If the Jews had started to gain a monopoly over the Hebrew, as opposed to Jewish Christians, or the demise of Jewish Christianity because of the rise of Gentile Christianity, (I do not know of any Jewish Christian tradition that directly goes from Pentecost to this day, but the line passes from St John to Polycarp and the Eastern Orthodox, and into the Protestant Reformation, Britain, America and Australia) then learning of Hebrew must have diminished, or Hebrew would have been like the case of Medieval Latin. Thus, the Jews could have said, Our Hebrew does not say this. but a movement somewhat like the KJBO movement said, We have Gods Word in the Greek LXX. (The LXXO movement?) Anyway, that is why Jerome was rare for knowing Hebrew, and why the Guardianship of the OT was being held by Christians in the LXX, though the LXX was inferior, and the Vulgate was better because at least Jerome use the Hebrew. And so there came a Vulgate Only movement, because the Vulgate was better than the LXX. Now it is associated with error to try and go back to the LXX or Vulgate. That would be like trying to go back to the Geneva Bible.

(I can well imagine that a modern version could come out that would go back to the Geneva Bible: it could be like trying to do a 1769 style revision on the Geneva Bible, and be wonderfully acclaimed because it is going back to the Reformation and all this, but it would not be right. I can even imagine that if someone took the main anti-modern version arguments and tried to make a modern version that did not break any of these rules, including having so-called archaic words, and specifically appeal to the underlying authority of the KJB, and try and prove how it would be better than the KJB, exactly opposite to the NKJV approach, yet this type of modern version would be impure/corrupt.)

Anyway, it may be a valid point that if someone used a corrupt(er) Vulgate to argue against the true(r) Hebrew, that their arguments may well be flawed because they are using the corrupt(er) Vulgate as the basis.

In the light of the KJB today, were there corruptions in the Hebrew, and did they result from deliberate tampering. The conventional view is yes, at least in Psalm 22. But we know that the correct Word was also preserved in Hebrew, despite corruptions, thanks to the Masoretes.