This is from Eusebius :
All the references to Papias: http://www.textexcavation.com/papias.htmlFor information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words]: And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. [This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark; but with regard to Matthew he has made the following statements]: Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could. [The same person uses proofs from the First Epistle of John, and from the Epistle of Peter in like manner. And he also gives another story of a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is to be found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.]
From what I see, Eusebius is the only one who claims that Papias said something about Mark and Matthew. Everyone else who says it appears to be copying from Eusebius .
But what Eusebius attributes to Papias doesn't make sense. Firstly, note that even Eusebius indicates that what he attributes to Papias isn't in Papias' own writings.
But if we assume Papias were to make this statement around 110, then clearly there is yet no canon nor even knowledge of the four Gospels. Following David Trobisch, who seems to really know WTF he's talking about, the logic behind these names didn't really arise until the establishment of the first edition of the whole New Testament. Where would Papias have plucked these names from? One can argue that Papias maybe pulled them from thin air or got them from some tradition, and then later justifications for these names were developed, but this seems highly doubtful, especially given that Eusebius appears to be the first person to attribute these claims to Papias. It appears that the names Luke and Mark are drawn from the letters of Paul, but Papias shows no knowledge of Paul.
Why would Papias say that Mark wrote down what Peter said? The whole idea of justifying the merit of this account by tying it to Peter is a much later concept. Why would someone in 110 think that the account of Mark would need to be justified by tying it back to the primary apostle? The establishment of Peter as the "patron apostle" of the Roman church had presumably not even happened yet. Why would Papias make a statement about Mark being out of order? This sounds like a justification that one would only make against the full four Gospel collection. Sure we can claim that he has Matthew to compare against, but if Papias only knows Matthew and Mark and has no concept of a canon yet, then why would he even be making these judgements or even be concerned with this subject? The whole topic doesn't sound relevant to someone from 110ish.
Furthermore, that the epistles of John and Peter even existed in 110 is highly doubtful. But even if they did, we are to believe that this Papias is busy making proofs from these two very writings which appear later in the canon? But in reality we have very good cause to believe that the epistle of John was written after the Gospel of John and that the Gospel of John is quite late. This whole statement from Eusebius sounds entirely bogus.
And why would Papias, without any other context, attribute this Gospel to an associate of Peter? In the Gospel of Mark Jesus calls Peter Satan! Why in Hell would someone think that Peter would give an account in which he says that Jesus called him Satan? That makes no sense at all. Rather, the tradition tying the Gospel to Peter makes sense in light of the four fold tradition, because Matthew was said to be an eyewitness account, John was said to be an eyewitness account, and then they needed two Gospels that could be tied to the two primary apostles of Paul and Peter. The Gospel of Luke was tied to Paul as a way to appropriate Marcion's Gospel and Marcion's hold on Paul. By attributing Luke to an associate of Paul's the orthodox were able to claim, against Marcion, that they had a Gospel that was in fact an account from Paul himself (despite the fact that everyone knew Paul didn't write a Gospel.) To balance this out they also needed a Gospel that could be attributed to Peter. So just as in Acts of the Apostles, where Peter and Paul are balanced against one another, they needed a comparable balancing between Peter and Paul in the tradition of the Evangelists as well.
Thus, it was only at this time that assigning Mark to an interpreter of Peter made sense. Logically, the association of Mark with Peter only makes sense as the very last assignment of tradition, after basically all the other Gospels had been designated. This also makes sense of the fact that Peter is associated with this anti-Peter Gospel, because it was basically the only Gospel left.
My assumption is that the name Mark was assigned to the Gospel called Mark prior to any association between Mark and Peter. Most likely, the name Mark came from the letters of Paul and was assigned with no intention of an association to Peter. The association with Peter was just a later tradition used to balance out the tradition against Paul. So, this really is not possibly something that some real Papias could have said circa 110.
