HKB
"Matthew accordingly wrote [or compiled] the oracles in the Hebrew dialect, and everyone translated them as he was able."
It seems pretty evident that Papias is here referring to the First Gospel. Some, indeed, have supposed that he means by "the oracles" a writing composed almost exclusively of sayings of Jesus, which formed merely one of the sources of our First Gospel. This view is probably incorrect. Papias could designate the Gospel of Matthew as "the oracles" either because of the large place which sayings of Jesus have in this Gospel, as compared, for example, with the Gospel of Mark, or else because the whole Gospel, both speeches and narrative, was of divine, oracular authority. The view that "according to Matthew" in the ancient title and in Christian tradition means not that Matthew wrote the book, but that it is based in some way ultimately on his authority, is opposed by the analogy of Mark. As we shall see, the Gospel of Mark, in early tradition, was referred ultimately to the authority of Peter; if, therefore, "according to" was used in the sense indicated above, the Second Gospel would have been called the Gospel "according to Peter" instead of the Gospel "according to Mark."
The testimony of Papias involves two principal assertions: in the first place, that Matthew wrote the First Gospel; and in the second place, that he wrote it in the "Hebrew" language.
The former assertion, which is supported by a striking consensus of early writers, has already been considered. The latter is much more puzzling.
=(1) Meaning of "Hebrew."=--By "the Hebrew dialect," Papias no doubt means Aramaic rather than what we call Hebrew. The term "Hebrew" was applied to both of the two closely related languages. Compare Acts 21:40. It is exceedingly unlikely that a Gospel would have been written in Hebrew; for before the time of Christ that had ceased to be the living language of Palestine. What Papias asserts, then, is that Matthew wrote in Aramaic.
=(2) "Everyone Translated Them as He Was Able."=--Papias asserts further that everyone translated the oracles as he was able. These words may be interpreted in various ways. Perhaps they mean that every man who used the original of Matthew had to translate it for himself; or perhaps that the Gospel was translated orally in the churches, as the Jews translated the Hebrew Old Testament into Aramaic in the synagogues; or perhaps that a number of written translations of the Gospel were made. At any rate Papias seems to imply that the condition which he here describes had come to an end when he wrote. Some one Greek form of the Gospel had gained general acceptance; the time when everyone translated as he was able was at an end.
(3) Value of the Tradition.--The tradition of an Aramaic original of Matthew is not preserved merely by Papias, but appears in a considerable number of early writers. How far the other writers are independent of Papias is a disputed question. The tradition may be variously estimated. Some have supposed that it is entirely correct--that our Greek Gospel of Matthew is a translation, by Matthew himself or by some one else, of an Aramaic work: others have supposed that the tradition is altogether false--for example, that an Aramaic translation of the Greek Gospel was mistaken for an original from which the Greek Gospel had been translated: others hold intermediate views--for example, that one of the sources of our Greek Gospel was written in Aramaic. An important objection to the view that there was an Aramaic original of Matthew is that the Greek Gospel looks more like an original Greek work than like a translation. The tradition of the Aramaic Matthew places before us one of the unsolved problems of New Testament criticism.