Since the beginning of patristic Christianity, John Mark, the cousin of Barnabas and alleged secretary of Peter has been universally held as the author of the Gospel of Mark. This is sheer church mythology with nothing but unsubstantial church tradition to support it. The strongest real weight that Mark might possibly be the author is due to the fact that the narrative is written by an eye-witness. Based upon this, it is believed that Mark recorded the recollections of Peter, who was an eye-witness. This position has as its original foundation and support the teaching of the church father Papias. Papias was an unreliable storyteller who spun various tales about the writings of the apostles. When other church fathers maintained that John Mark was the author of the gospel, all roads of witness led back to Papias.
This notion and standing is firmly established in all areas of Biblical studies and interpretations to this day.
The way that authorship of New Covenant writings should be determined is by internal evidence. External evidence, such as statements by Papias, should be taken with a grain of salt, especially when it is fraught with groundless claims and false interpretations.
The internal evidence of the writings indicate that Andrew, Peter’s brother, is the author of the second canonical gospel, and that he wrote on his own accord and not according to the instructions of Peter. Like Peter, Andrew was an eye-witness to his narration. There are a group of indications that when taken together thoroughly make the case as evidence of his authorship.
Andrew is named 12 times in the Scriptures, four of those are in the second gospel. Starting there and in order of appearance he is named in the first of two authoritative summons of Jesus (along with his brother Simon) of the two sets of brothers who were the closest of the apostles to Jesus.
Next, and unlike in Matthew and Luke, he is named as co-owner of the house were Jesus healed Peter’s mother-in-law.
Next, when the apostles are listed as called and appointed by Jesus, he appears last among the two sets of brothers. Such is not the case in Matthew and Luke. This could be because he is listing the added character names of the first three, but it could very well be, and probably is, the same apostolic self-humility that is seen in Matthew, Luke (although Luke was not an apostle), and John when they are referencing themselves in their narratives of Jesus. It should be noted here that this self-humility is a sure indication of authorship among all of the writers of the canonical “gospels”. All four of them practice this device.
Finally, after Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple, the two sets of brothers went to Him for understanding about when such would occur. Again, Andrew isn’t named naturally after Peter, but is named last of the group. In my opinion, this is not Peter imposing via Mark the lowest position on his brother, but, instead, it is Andrew exercising the self-humility of being a participant in and the author of the report.
The remaining eight mentions of Andrew also lend weight to him being the author of the second gospel.
Matthew, in the first narrative, lists Andrew in the authoritative summons to follow Jesus.
He also lists him in the enumeration of the chosen and appointed apostles, but in the natural order of birth siblings.
Luke, in his list of the apostles repeats Matthew.
It is when we come to John that things change in a refined and heightened way. It is my opinion that John names Andrew in the ways that he does because he sees Andrew as more spiritual than his brother Peter. This has nothing to do with call and appointment. That is clear because Jesus appointed Simon and gave him the name Rock (Peter) as delegated leader, subordinate to Himself, among The Twelve.
John would not have said and never did say the fact that he, the younger brother of James, was, in fact, the more spiritual of the two. I believe the same reality applied to Peter’s younger brother Andrew and is seen in John’s writing about him.
When John first mentions Andrew he states that Andrew and himself were originally disciples of John the Baptist, but when they heard John witness to Jesus as the Lamb of God, they immediately left him to become disciples of Jesus. It should be noted here that this is the first place where John speaks of himself in terms of humility. He and Andrew were first active disciples of John in anticipation of the Messiah. When Andrew sat under Jesus, the first thing that he did was bring is brother Simon to the Messiah Jesus. Then John gives more honorable mention of Andrew in what occurred the next day. He stated that Jesus found Philip and summoned him to follow. Philip did just that and also did what Andrew before had done, although it did not involve a sibling. Philip found Nathaniel and led him to Jesus. It is in the reference to Philip’s home town that John shows how he sees Andrew. He stated the Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter, not the city of Peter and Andrew, but Andrew and Peter. It is my opinion that this is an indication that John saw Andrew as the more spiritually prominent of the two siblings.
The last two instances in John are also telling. All four narrative writers report the miraculous feeding of the five thousand. In Matthew, Andrew, and Luke it is the apostles as a group who report to Jesus that there are five loaves and two fish available for the multitude. John however, gives the honorable place to Andrew as the one who told Jesus of the available food. On the surface, this seems to be insignificant, but when considered as to how Andrew was viewed and singled out by John, it is an honorable mention. John’s last citing proves the point. Just before the final feast of Passover in which Jesus Himself would become the Passover, some Greeks went to the feast to worship. This was seen by Jesus as a sign that He was about to be glorified through His death and would bear much fruit – the harvest of the world. It is the movement around the Greeks wherein Andrew stands out. When the Greeks wanted to see Jesus they found Philip, who was of a Hellenized city. However, to accomplish their desire, Philip turned to Andrew, and Andrew and Philip together told Jesus.
The last mention in the writings is by Luke in Acts. It is his grouping of the twelve apostles. His grouping is different than his first narrative grouping. The reason for this new arrangement is probably because he is acknowledging the settled spiritual state of affairs of the apostles at that time. In all four listings (of Matthew, Andrew, and the two by himself) the apostles are arranged in three groups of four, with the apostle named first in each group never changing. However, in my opinion, in his last Acts group he acknowledges the self-humility signature of both Matthew and Andrew. (This is a clear witness to the fact that Matthew and Andrew wrote their narratives prior to Luke writing his two-volume narrative, and, that the many narratives that he considered included theirs, in some early form.) Another indication that his Acts grouping is a more spiritual rendition of the whole group is seen in his moving Simon the Zealot up one level ahead Judas the brother of James, also known as Thaddeus in Matthew and Andrew. He had done the same thing in his first narrative, and left it alone.
A fact about the resurrection scene gives another strong witness that Andrew is our author. Only in the second narrative does the young man tell the women to tell the disciples and Peter that Jesus was going ahead of them into Galilee, and there they would see Him. This is not Peter telling Mark to reference that the young man was rehabilitating him from his denials of Jesus. Nor would he have held himself out like that as first among the apostles. Rather, it is Andrew doing that very thing for his brother! This is also a very strong witness to the force and reach of the apostolic authority of Andrew. Mark was not an apostle, and apart from the church tradition grounded in circular reasoning, was not even a secretary of Peter.
Summary: It is very highly unlikely that John Mark wrote the gospel that bears his name at the direction of Peter. That’s all the evidence there is because the external evidence grounded in repeated references regarding Papias are totally unreliable. This is a classic case of begging the question.
By far it is strongly probable and highly likely that Andrew wrote the second narrative as witnessed to by the internal evidence of the New Covenant writings themselves.