canonical Gospels. In the 19th century, however, scholars began to question whether this tradition actually refers to those texts, especially in the case of what Papias ascribes to Matthew. In 1832, Schleiermacher, believing Papias to be writing before these Gospels were regarded as inspired Scripture and before the formation of any New Testament canon, argued that logia could not be understood in its usual sense but must rather be interpreted as utterances (), and that Papias was referring to collections of the sayings of Jesus. Soon afterwards, a new theory of the Synoptic problem emerged, the two-source hypothesis, positing that the double tradition in Matthew and Luke derived from a lost document containing mostly sayings of Jesus. Holtzmann's defense of this theory, which has dominated scholarship ever since, seized upon Schleiermacher's thesis and argued that Papias was attesting a (logia-source), which he designated Λ (lambda). When later scholars abandoned the evidence of Papias as an argument, this hypothetical source came to be more neutrally designated as Q (for ), but the reinterpretation of the word logia already had firmly taken hold in scholarship. Modern scholars are divided on what Papias actually meant, especially with regard to the logia he ascribes to Matthew, and what underlying historical facts this testimony alludes to. Some see this logia as referring still to the Old Testament, thus a collection of prophecies and prooftexts regarding Jesus. Others still hold that Papias is speaking of a now-lost collection of sayings, noting that canonical gospel of Matthew is especially focused on the sayings of Jesus. Others, noting how in the account of Mark, the parallel to "things said or done by the Lord" requires the meaning of logia at least to be extended to deeds, see Papias as referring to some account more closely resembling the canonical Gospels. Still others hold that Papias was indeed referring to the canonical Gospels as we know them—arguably even using logia in the sense of Scriptures, and "dominical logia" as an early term for "Gospels"—and that the account of Papias thus amounts to our earliest testimony of their existence and recognition. Another point of controversy surrounds the statement that Matthew wrote in the "Hebrew dialect", which in the Greek could refer to either Hebrew or Aramaic. Some, noting that "dialect" could mean not only language but also, in a technical sense, style, understand Papias to be referring to a Greek language