And we do know about ancient manuscripts of Q...? Or what...? I do not know what your point is here.
I did not say that. I said we cannot see in the ancient manuscripts of gMatthew many differences which would explain what Papias wrote about Matthew's logia.
I never said they were. Once again, not sure where you are going with this.
From these two epistles, Papias could only extract words, not sayings and deeds of Jesus.
According to that, then, the logia that Peter preached are no more than the words that Peter had allegedly heard from Jesus, correct? If this is the case, and (according to Papias) Mark wrote down what Peter said accurately, then where did Mark get the deeds of the Lord?
Papias established, before he wrote about the Lord's logia, that "Mark" "wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ."
So that says, allegedly "Mark" got sayings and deeds of Jesus by way of Peter.
Then later, Papias only mentioned the words (or oracles) of the Lord, which seems to be the main concern. Just because "and deeds" is omitted (but that has been established earlier) does not make "logia" meaning also deeds.
"Logia" means words, as heard from Aristion & John the elder & those who claimed they knew the disciples of Jesus (including Matthew) and read from two epistles (and all of that "exposed" in Papias' five books: Expositions of the logia
of the Lord). Why would it mean something different in the phrase "logia of the Lord"?