Bauckham may not deal adequately with the negative or ambiguous evidence in Mark about the disciples. Other scholars too excuse the texts where the Twelve come across in a less than flattering light, such as their constant misunderstandings (4:13, 40-41; 6:51-52; 7:17-18; 8:4, 14-21, 31-33; 9:10, 32-34, 38-41; 10:35-45; 14:4-5), the bold request of James and John for seats of honor (10:35-40), the rebuke of Peter as the mouthpiece of Satan (8:33), or Peter’s threefold denials (14:66-72), by crediting it as a testament to apostolic humility.[96] Supposedly Peter bluntly recalls his indiscretions to the evangelist, leaving Matthew and Luke to re-sanitize his reputation. For instance, noticing the dramatic differences in the scene at Caesarea Philippi in Mark 8:29-33 to the praise heaped upon Peter in the Matthean parallel (Matt 16:13-9), R. P. Martin contends that “[o]nly the humbled apostle who was willing to relate, in such detail, his denial of the Lord would have left out the words of the same Lord’s blessing upon him.”[97] The problem is that Mark does not just document the Twelve’s occasional foibles. Their extraordinary powers of incompre- hension—worrying over bread after Jesus miraculously multiplied it twice (8:16-21) or caught off-guard in Gethsemane despite three straightforward passion predictions (8:31-32; 9:31-32; 10:32-34)—goes beyond reasonable miscommunication and borders on parody. Their lapses in judgment are retained in Synoptic parallels (Matt 16:5-12; Matt 16:21-22; Matt 17:22-23/Luke 9:44-45; Matt 20:17-23/Luke 18:31-34), but Mark alone has their hearts collectively hardened (6:52; 8:17) like Pharaoh (Exod 7:3, 13-14, 22; 8:19; 9:12, 35; 10:20, 27; 11:10; 14:4) or Jesus’ foes (Mark 3:5). Peter’s denials are not suppressed, but Matthew 16:17-19, Luke 22:32, and the Johannine epilogue (21:15-19) balance it out by explicitly re-affirming Peter’s leadership of the post-Easter community. Jesus’ siblings do not fare much better. They are vaguely described as “the ones with him” (οἱ παρ΄ αὐτου) (Mark 3:21; cf. 3:32-35) who try to restrain Jesus and put side-by-side with the scribes who demonize Jesus (3:22-30); Jesus’ true family is defined around obedience (3:35). Mark may not actively polemicize against James as the brothers are unnamed and may have more of an eye to comforting readers feeling the sting of familial betrayal (13:12).[98] The focus is on the redefinition of kinship relations to the wider group (3:35), a group that favorably remembers the devotion of Jesus’ mother in going to anoint her son’s corpse (15:40, 47; 16:1).[99] Still, there is no thought that James or any of Jesus’ brothers have a special station in this redefined family. At any rate, Peter, the Twelve, and the family of Jesus are all represented ambivalently in the narrative and it is hard to imagine that its author worked at the behest of one of the Jerusalem Pillars. Nor can the negative be swept away by the veneration of Peter as a noble martyr,[100] for, while Mark alludes to the deaths of James and John (10:39), there is no indication that Mark was aware of Peter’s martyrdom (contra John 21:18-19). Joel Marcus is right that the gravity of the ideological struggles for leadership makes it unlikely that Mark’s portrayal would meet Peter’s approval.[101] If not for the hints of reconciliation at 14:28 and 16:7, the last time the Twelve appear in the narrative is on a note of their utter failure.