“Not really”
Is it true that the Greek Mt 28:1 has “Late on the sabbath”?

_Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence_ (1936), 172pp. by Charles Cutler Torrey. On 20-26:
Exhibit IV. Ambiguity of the Aram. Text.
….
F. Mt. 28:1 ac. to Grk.: LATE ON(!) THE SABBATH (….[snip Aramaic]….), AS IT DAWNED TO (….[snip Aramaic]….) the first day of the week, etc.
True rendering: AFTER THE SABBATH (same words) AND BEFORE THE DAWN OF (same word) the first day of the week, etc.
….
Exhibit IV, F (Mt. 28:1). This is a particularly fine example of translator’s nonsense. The Grk. renders admirably, according to the canons of that day; but the curious idiom of the original cannot be rendered closely, in any non-Semitic language, without losing its meaning and creating confusion. The familiar Aram. phrase (translated also into Talmudic Heb.) designates ordinarily the time between the close (sunset) of one day and the dawn of the next day, and may apply either to the entire time or to any part of it. In the present case, it happens to apply to the latter part of the night, before dawn. “Late on the sabbath” is a ridiculous rendering, though faithful to the Grk. It is also quite incorrect to suppose that “as it began to dawn” (German, “in der Dammerung”) gives the true meaning of the latter part of the phrase. The word “dawn” is there, it is true, but as it is employed in this idiom, the time intended could equally well be midnight, or any hour before or after it.

The same idiom precisely, using the same word (_dawn!_) is found in classical Syriac. In the _Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite_, ed. Wright, p. 22, line 9, it designates the whole “night between Friday and Saturday.” In Bedjan’s _Acta Mart. et Sanct._, IV, 579 f., the time is “at midnight”; _ibid._, 629, “at the eleventh hour of the night.”

The facts in regard to the use of this peculiar phrase in Jewish Aram. and Talmudic Heb. were set forth very fully, with abundant references, by George F. Moore in the _Journ. Am. Oriental Soc._, Vol. 26 (1906), pp. 323-329. They seem to have been unknown to the N.T. commentators (including Wellhausen), who suppose Mt. to have misunderstood this and that in Mk., and in general to have made a bad mess of the account at this point. Mt.’s Aram. text differed indeed considerably from Mk.’s, but contradicted it in no respect. Allen, _Comm._, Klostermann-Gressmann, and probably others, have been misled by Dalman, _Gramm._, 2nd ed., p. 247, notes 2 and 4. The reference in the former note cannot apply to Mt. 28:1, and the phrase referred to in note 4 is only part of the idiom described here. Dalman’s further remark, “Vom Morgengrauen ab ist die Bezeichnung unmoglich,” is also incorrect, for, as Moore (p. 325) shows, the phrase quoted is sometimes made to include the whole of the following day. See, further, the note on Lk. 23:54.

“Torrey thought the Old Syriac gospels were translations made by Jews from Palestine and the Peshitta was also a translation. His own theories of Aramaic originals have been largely rejected by scholars, in large part because of the findings in contemporary Greek texts by Deissmann, Grenfell, and Hunt. Edgar Goodspeed, a linguist and specialist in Semitic languages without peer, extensively criticized Torrey”
In what book(s)?  I found a Goodspeed book discussing Torrey re: Acts, but didn’t locate a Goodspeed book addressing Torrey’s _Our Translated Gospels_ (1936).

“and pointed out how Semiticists disagreed among themselves”
Of course they disagree– they’re humans.

“Torrey’s historical view that all of the New Testament was written before 50 CE is not followed by any critical scholars”

_Documents of the Primitive Church_ by Charles Cutler Torrey (1941), 309pp., on 241-242
** you do not have permission to see this link **
….the fact is of no little importance that we have here, in plain words, an example of the early Christian assertion that the day of verbal inspiration had returned. The claim that John is an inspired prophet and that his book is holy scripture is as clear and emphatic as any words can make it. This brings the date of the book within narrow limits. The absurdity of supposing that this Aramaic document claiming Jewish canonicity could have been put forth after its doctrine had been officially pronounced damnable heresy is obvious. It certainly was published before the year 80. But this is not all; a date before the year 70 is plainly indicated. If the book had been written between 70 and 80 there certainly would have been in it some allusion to the great catastrophe. Silence in regard to it, in view of the author’s intense interest in the holy city, is simply inconceivable.

Moreover, the date cannot have been much _before_ 70. The theology of the book has advanced some distance beyond that of our earliest Christian writings. As Swete remarks, pp. cliv f., 
“No one who comes to the Apocalypse fresh from the study of the Gospels and Epistles can fail to recognize that he has passed into another atmosphere…. The Christ of the Apocalypse is the Christ of the Gospels, but a change has passed over Him which is beyond words.”
The Church doctrine has progressed. 

It is to be observed how the results thus reached, a date shortly before the year 70, confirms the explicit statement of the author of Rev., that he wrote in the time of the sixth emperor before the seventh had come to the throne; that is, in the year 68. 

The fact has already been emphasized, that the terror of the Beast is over all the latter half of the book. The horrible scenes of the year 64, in Rome, are fresh in mind. There is no need to conjecture what the steadfast Christians would be called upon to face, on the return of the Beast. The farther away from Nero’s reign the book is dated, the more incomprehensible is the amount of space given to this apprehension. 

A most important passage, truly decisive in view of all the other evidence, is the beginning (the first two verses) of chapter 11, where John is commanded to take a reed (Ezek. 40:3 ff.) and measure the temple and the altar; but not to measure the court of the Gentiles, symbolic of the tribulation still to be endured. Jerusalem and the temple are standing, the armies of Titus have not yet entered the city. This was written before the year 70….

_Problems of New Testament Translation_ by Edgar J. Goodspeed (1945), using ‘Search inside’ for: Aramaic
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Page 21
The word [i.e. raca] has long perplexed translators and interpreters and has led to much speculation. No Aramaic word resembling it has been reported. There is a Hebrew root from which such a word might have arisen, but no occurrence of this form from that root in either Aramaic or Hebrew has been pointed out. Dr. Colwell quotes Augustine as saying that a Jew “told him it was a word without meaning, an interjection expressing indignation.”^1

Jennings pg. 211
** you do not have permission to see this link **

** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
rq, rqˀ (rāq, rāqā) n.m. vile person
vile person Gal, CPA, Syr. BR 278:9(1) : דהוה אמ׳ להון רקייה‏ . P Mt5:22 : ܘܟܼܽܠ ܕܿܢܼܐܡܲܪ ܠܲܐܚܘܼܗ̱ܝ ܪܲܩܲܐ‏ whoever says to his brother: vile one!.
Greek ῥακά.
Page refs. in other dictionaries: LS2: 1488[743]; DJPA: 529b; Payne-Smith: ~3972; J. Payne-Smith: 549; DCPA[Schulthess]: 407[197];

“Goodspeed is trying to make sense of the Greek texts that have ραχα instead of ρακα”
Do you agree with Goodspeed that “No Aramaic word resembling it has been reported”?

Magiera’s concordance has ‘r-u-q-a’ i.e. spit at Jn 9,6.
She lists ‘r-q’ i.e. spit for
Mt 26,67
27,30

Mk 7,33
8,23
10,34
14,65
15,19

Lk 18,32
Jn 9,6

“may be missing Goodspeed’s point”
Perhaps I am.
I’m seeing “No Aramaic word resembling it has been reported.”
What do you think the Aramaic word raca as used by Jesus means?

_Problems of New Testament Translation_ by Edgar J. Goodspeed (1945), using ‘Search inside’ for: Aramaic
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Page 21
The word [i.e. raca] has long perplexed translators and interpreters and has led to much speculation. No Aramaic word resembling it has been reported. There is a Hebrew root from which such a word might have arisen, but no occurrence of this form from that root in either Aramaic or Hebrew has been pointed out. Dr. Colwell quotes Augustine as saying that a Jew “told him it was a word without meaning, an interjection expressing indignation.”^1

What do you think of Torrey’s remarks about the date of Revelation’s composition?

_Documents of the Primitive Church_ by Charles Cutler Torrey (1941), 309pp., on 241-242
** you do not have permission to see this link **
….the fact is of no little importance that we have here, in plain words, an example of the early Christian assertion that the day of verbal inspiration had returned. The claim that John is an inspired prophet and that his book is holy scripture is as clear and emphatic as any words can make it. This brings the date of the book within narrow limits. The absurdity of supposing that this Aramaic document claiming Jewish canonicity could have been put forth after its doctrine had been officially pronounced damnable heresy is obvious. It certainly was published before the year 80. But this is not all; a date before the year 70 is plainly indicated. If the book had been written between 70 and 80 there certainly would have been in it some allusion to the great catastrophe. Silence in regard to it, in view of the author’s intense interest in the holy city, is simply inconceivable.

Moreover, the date cannot have been much _before_ 70. The theology of the book has advanced some distance beyond that of our earliest Christian writings. As Swete remarks, pp. cliv f.,
“No one who comes to the Apocalypse fresh from the study of the Gospels and Epistles can fail to recognize that he has passed into another atmosphere…. The Christ of the Apocalypse is the Christ of the Gospels, but a change has passed over Him which is beyond words.”
The Church doctrine has progressed.

It is to be observed how the results thus reached, a date shortly before the year 70, confirms the explicit statement of the author of Rev., that he wrote in the time of the sixth emperor before the seventh had come to the throne; that is, in the year 68.

The fact has already been emphasized, that the terror of the Beast is over all the latter half of the book. The horrible scenes of the year 64, in Rome, are fresh in mind. There is no need to conjecture what the steadfast Christians would be called upon to face, on the return of the Beast. The farther away from Nero’s reign the book is dated, the more incomprehensible is the amount of space given to this apprehension.

A most important passage, truly decisive in view of all the other evidence, is the beginning (the first two verses) of chapter 11, where John is commanded to take a reed (Ezek. 40:3 ff.) and measure the temple and the altar; but not to measure the court of the Gentiles, symbolic of the tribulation still to be endured. Jerusalem and the temple are standing, the armies of Titus have not yet entered the city. This was written before the year 70….

“At the moment I have no interest in reading Torrey’s remarks on the dating of the book of Revelation. I don’t like the book of Revelation”
The Greek Revelation was translated from Aramaic. If anyone wishes to read some details about the atrocious Greek grammar in the Greek translation, see below.

Charles C. Torrey, _The Apocalypse of John: Introduction, Excerpts, and a New Translation_ (1958)
In regard to the strange Greek constructions Norden, quoted above, truly says that in every case of a barbarism the correct usage appears elsewhere in the book. There is no lack of knowledge of Greek idiom. As for the Greek particles, the manner of their use or absence is like what we see throughout the Greek Bible. Here also there is no proof of ignorance. Charles’ explanation is decidedly less plausible than the others.

There is excellent reason, however, for one conclusion he reaches―expressed in similar words by many before him―namely, that “the linguistic character of the Apocalypse is absolutely unique.” The grammatical monstrosities of the book, in their number and variety and especially in their startling character, stand alone in the history of literature. It is only in the Greek that they are apparent, for it is the form, not the sense, that is affected.
A few of the more striking solecisms are exhibited here in English translation, so that any reader may see their nature.

1:4. “Grace to you, and peace, from he who is and who was and who is to come” (all nom. case).
1:15. “His legs were like burnished brass (neut. gend., dative case) as in a furnace purified (fem. gend., sing. no., gen. case)”
11:3. “My witnesses (nom.) shall prophesy for many days clothed (accus.) in sackcloth.”
14:14. “I saw on the cloud one seated like unto a son-of-man (accus.), having (nom.) upon his head a golden crown.”
14:19. “He harvested the vintage of the earth, and cast it into the winepress (fem.), the great [winepress] (masc.) of the wrath of God.”
17:4. “A golden cup filled with abominations (gen.) and with unclean things (accus.).”
19:20. “The lake of blazing fire (“fire,” neut.; “blazing,” fem.).
20:2. “And he seized the dragon (accus.), the old serpent (nom.), who is the Devil and Satan and bound him.”
21:9. “Seven angels, holding the seven bowls (accus.) filled (gen.) with the seven last plagues.”
22:5. “They have no need of lamplight (gen.) nor of sunlight (accus.).”

This apparent linguistic anarchy has no explanation on the Greek side. It is hardly surprising that to some readers it should have seemed open defiance of grammar, to others a symptom of mental aberration. Nevertheless there is method to it all. The more grotesque these barbarisms, the more certain it is that they are not due to lack of acquaintance with Greek. Each of the rules broken in the passages here cited is faithfully observed in many other places and shown to be perfectly familiar.
….
In fact, underlying all of the amazing solecisms is seen the wording of the Semitic original. The grammatical monstrosities, recognized in their true nature, testify to the execution of a definite purpose carried through with remarkable consistency. When they are examined, they are found to show grammatical appreciation rather than the lack of it. But it is Aramaic grammar!
(Nevertheless, the ideal of a thoroughly accurate translation was incapable of realization, as we know to our sorrow. No Greek translator of an unpointed Semitic text of the extent of this apocalypse could possibly come through without his considerable sheath of mistranslations. We have no knowledge of any such faultless―or even nearly faultless―achievement.*)

What the Greek translator of Revelation does, in the effort to be exactly faithful, is merely an exaggeration of what is regularly and constantly done in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The translators rendered as they did because of the conception of their task. They were handing down works of high importance, and would assume no unnecessary responsibility. What they―each and all―aimed at was to produce a text which could be understood by the Greek reader and at the same should mirror faithfully every word and phrase of the sacred original. This, the original, was the all-important thing, and the fact was always kept in view. The style of the translation was of no consequence; it was not Greek, nor ever intended to be.
*See _Our Translated Gospels_ [by Torrey], chapter 1; _The Four Gospels_ [by Torrey], pages 265-74.

“any current critical scholars who argue for Peshitta primacy?”
Does Glenn David Bauscher count as a ‘current critical scholar’?

edit: The 2020 Gaza book’s URL is actually

According to the Greek mss. of the NT, Jesus is headed to hellfire, had feet that were like pillars, and had breasts.

A mistranslation at Greek Rev 1:13 says Jesus has female breasts.

Rev 1:13 (Common English Bible)
“In the middle of the lampstands I saw someone who looked like the Human One. He wore a robe that stretched down to his feet, and he had a gold sash around his chest.[aj]”
The Greek word used here is mastos and is used exclusively for a woman’s breasts.

Rather than using στῆθος/ stethos/ chest, the Greek mss. for Revelation 1:13 speak of Jesus having μαστός/ mastos/ breasts.

Do you have an explanation of the Greek Revelation’s grammatical monstrosities?