A Jungian psychologist decides that the Gospel of Mark ends without resurrection, on purpose, but apparently he has never read the damn thing lol

 The Transcendent Absence: Mark's Unresurrected Christ and the Creative Imperative

... Mark's unresurrected Christ ... The absence of resurrection in Mark's Gospel . . ..                                                                                                                                                                                                    

There's just one little problem with these statements: They are falsehoods. The text says Jesus rose.

Everyone agrees that Mark's "narrative rupture" occurs at the close of 16:8.

But the resurrection occurs before that:

And entering into the sepulchre, [the women] saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. 

And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. 

But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you [in Mark 14:28]. 

And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid. 

-- Mark 16:5-8

The endings after this are obviously supplied based on internal evidence of language and style which differ from Mark's. And their variety is a sign that something was felt to be wanting from a very early time. External evidence shows the gospel ending at 16:8 in two famous codices from the fourth century: Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. And Matthew and Luke and John in their turn each supply their own fuller accounts, some of the elements of which resemble the endings supplied to Mark. 

The twice promised resurrection appearance in Galilee in Mark is perhaps the most wanting thing. Simply on that basis it strains credulity to think Mark intended the ending to be 16:8. The composition is unfinished, or was early on damaged. 

But the resurrection is not missing from this abruptly ending gospel. One cannot speak of an unresurrected Christ in Mark. One cannot say there is no resurrection in Mark. It's right there in verse six.

Meanwhile we are told that "the sacred emerges through collective human action rather than through divine intervention", and that "the kingdom of God exists only insofar as we create it through revolutionary praxis within history's unfolding".

Unfortunately for the author, Brian Nuckols, Mark's Jesus doesn't believe any of that hooey.

The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

-- Mark 1:15

And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power. 

-- Mark 9:1   

Jesus' trial: Why Luke omits "Ye shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven"

 

Luke omits Jesus' prediction at his trial that his Jewish judges would see the Son of Man coming in the clouds. Luke also omits that they would see him seated at the right hand.

 

These predictions are made at Jesus' trial as found in Mark and in Matthew but not in Luke:

 

And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.  

-- Mark 14:62

 

Jesus said to him, "You have said it yourself. But I tell you, from now on [ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι] you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven." 

-- Matthew 26:64

 

But from now on [ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν] the Son of man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God.

-- Luke 22:69

 

Of course, some commentators get around the omissions by positing that Luke simply used a different, independent source from Mark and Matthew at this point, but that simply leaves us with two competing versions of what Jesus said.

Luke, however, is not unaware of the main idea and has Jesus say it elsewhere, and therefore it is not necessary to posit a different source but that he has simply made a different editorial decision about where and when to put it. To Luke it doesn't belong at the trial.

Like Mark 13:26 and Matthew 24:30, who thus have the conception uttered twice by Jesus, Luke reserves it to his version of the Little Apocalypse about the end of the world, where "they" refers to humanity in general:

 

And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.  

-- Luke 21:27

 

This makes more sense to Luke, and removes what looks like a difficulty for him if Matthew and Mark are insisting what they appear to be insisting.

 

For Luke the kingdom is already here because Jesus is present and working (Luke 17:20f.), but it will never really be "at hand" as it is in Matthew (3:2; 4:17; 10:7) and Mark (1:15) until a little later, when the trees shoot forth in the summer (Luke 21:30f.).  For Luke's apocalyptic Jesus, the appearance of such leaves is analogous to the emergence of the signs of the end of the world in sun, moon, and stars: chaos on land and sea and the powers of heaven rocked (Luke 21:25f.).

 

In Luke's hands Jesus now states perfunctorily at his trial that the Son of Man will sit at God's right hand, dropping the coming on the clouds and the prediction that his Jewish judges will see that or the enthronement. For good reason. Presumably he knows that Annas and Caiaphas died in the 40s and lived to see nothing, and Luke as he is writing has not witnessed the fulfillment of such predictions either.

 

It is little appreciated how Luke's editorial activity in the trial scene is connected to his larger theological project.

 

It is designed to agree with Luke's understanding of Jesus exalted at God's right hand in Acts, continuing his presence on earth by directing the missionary activities of the church through the Spirit, especially those of Paul among the Gentiles. 

 

Jesus' Jewish judges are now completely beside the point. God has bypassed them, just has Paul and Barnabas shook off the dust from their own feet against the Jews at Pisidian Antioch and turned to the Gentiles instead (Acts 13).

 

For Luke, the judgment of the Jews is postponed temporarily until the still imminent but delayed end of the world, when Jesus will then bring vengeance upon Judea (Luke 21:22, 31).

 

God's focus is turning elsewhere in the meantime. Jesus' objective is no longer his immediate return for the judgment of Israel, but rather a  near-term future of reigning at the right hand of power in order that the whole world might repent and be saved (Acts 2:39; John 3:17; Romans 4:16; 16:26; I Corinthians 9:22; I Timothy 2:4; Titus 2:11; II Peter 3:9).

 

Luke clearly thinks Mark and Matthew have the trial details wrong, just as they have wrong the reason for Jesus' trial (Jesus' call to discipleship required radical poverty, a direct threat to the revenue of the Jewish temple, and so to the Roman treasury). Jesus is no longer returning immediately to turn the tables on his Jewish judges, to become the judge instead of the judged. He is remaining at God's right hand to do something else: extend God's offer of mercy to all of mankind.

 

Consequently the coming of the Son of Man on the clouds of heaven for Luke is now a matter of a future second coming, conforming to a more or less structured apocalyptic narrative, unfolding at an undetermined but still imminent point in the near future, in agreement with the apocalyptic parallel narratives of both Mark and Matthew.

 

And then (καὶ τότε) shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

-- Luke 21:27

 

And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. 

-- Mark 13:26

 

And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 

-- Matthew 24:30

 

The imminently coming eschatological Son of Man without signs still front and center in Jesus' mind at his trial according to Mark and Matthew has been relegated to a future second coming narrative of his followers creation.

 

It is easier to explain the development of the Little Apocalypses of the gospels as derivative from an original, simple, and straightforward eschatological belief than it is the other way around. The former was developed in an elaborate manner to explain the failure of the latter.   

 

Those narratives notably all have Jesus condescend to address an apocalyptic timetable which was anathema to the original eschatological message, supplying a second coming replete with signs in the heavens above and the earth below which indicate that the ensuing end of the world can indeed be said to be observable to a certain extent, despite the fact that Jesus had in no uncertain terms eschewed any such observable signs, most notably in Mark 8:12:

 

 There shall no sign be given unto this generation.

 

Luke is not unaware of this tradition, either:

 

And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you [plural Pharisees].

-- Luke 17:20f.

 

The kingdom was already there among them, in the person of Jesus, and they had already missed it. It did not need Jesus to die and rise to be present. There would be no apocalyptic signs. It had already come as a surprise without them. Repent and follow him or perish!

 

But as both Luke and Matthew hedge Mark on Jesus' trial statements (Matthew followed by Luke already extenuate by adding "from now on", see above), they both hedge Mark about the signs as well, supplementing Mark 8:12 in their parallels with "no sign but the sign of the prophet Jonah" who was three days and three nights in the belly of the fish, about whom Mark knows . . .  nothing (Matthew 12:39; 16:4; Luke 11:29f.).

It is clear what is going on here.

 

Matthew and Luke reinterpret what is ostensibly the earliest tradition from the point of view of the resurrection wherever they can, freely tampering, dare we say it, with the word of God (II Corinthians 4:2) just as much as Mark had done (for example, by making Jesus' predict his rising on the third day in Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34; 14:28). They are, all of them, to one degree or another, with one degree of success or another, the new scribes of the kingdom of heaven (conveniently provided for by the kingdom-as-net story in Matthew 13:52 to justify their activity) who bring out of their treasure things new and old, discarding the bad and keeping the good.

The death of Jesus required as much. This bad thing that happened to Jesus had to be explained. They thought he would bring the kingdom and he did not.

 

In the case of the NT apocalyptic narratives, which portray Jesus willingly and volubly engaging in talk of signs of the end of the world with the disciples,  Jesus' future return as the Son of Man is now predicated on the gospel first being published among all the nations (Mark 13:10), until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled (Luke 21:24), so that all nations hear and come to hate the elect, original disciples (Matthew 24:9, 14). At which point all the tribes of the earth shall mourn when they see the Son of Man return in the clouds of heaven because judgment is finally nigh. Go ye therefore and make disciples of all nations while there is still time (Matthew 28:19f.).

 

In this the gospels overwhelmingly evidence the new point of view of the church, especially championed by Luke in Acts, which ends with Paul's arrival in Rome, the center of the world (The epistles still teem with apocalyptic expectation because with that achievement, it's mission accomplished).

Gone is the high dudgeon of the Jesus who said only an "evil generation" seeks after a sign (Matthew 12:39; Matthew 16:4; Luke 11:29).

 

All of it flies in the face of Jesus' command to go not into the way of the Gentiles (Matthew 10:5f.), and of a host of other awkward eruptions of the original, simple eschatology in the halfway houses of the evangelists:

 

that he was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel (Matthew 15:24),

 

that his followers would judge the twelve tribes of Israel, not Gentiles (Matthew 19:28; Luke 22:30),

 

that those followers will not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of man be come (Matthew 10:23),

 

that the kingdom is at hand (Matthew 3:2; Matthew 4:17; Matthew 10:7; Matthew 26:18, 45; Mark 1:15; Luke 10:9, 11), 

 

that the kingdom is already present in exorcisms (Matthew 12:28; Luke 11:20),

 

that the Son of Man would come in his kingdom before the deaths of some of the disciples (Matthew 16:28; Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27; John 21:23),

 

that the kingdom is already in their midst but is unobserved (Luke 17:20-21),

 

and that there was a general buzz of expectation around Jesus that the kingdom was coming immediately in Jerusalem for some reason (Luke 19:11), an expectation most especially embraced by Jesus' own disciples even until the very last when Jesus ascended into heaven (Acts 1:6).

 

But the resurrection? They were supposedly blind to the very idea of it to the end and beyond. The resurrection "they yet believed not . . ." (Luke 24:41)! But a kingdom restored to Israel, that they most certainly did believe to the end and beyond, but wrongly!

 

Where oh where did they get that idea, if not from Jesus? The historical Jesus preached the imminently coming kingdom, an idea they did have, not the resurrection, an idea they did not.

 

The apocalyptic narratives are a mixture of the complicated, rationalized new and the simple, enthusiastic old. They contain at the same time 1) a thought out timetable with signs for the end of the world which was anathema to Jesus and 2) a memory of the unpredictable in-breaking of the kingdom which has no timetable, the message he actually preached.

 

It was the latter which otherwise and everywhere occasioned all this urgency and expectation swirling about Jesus in the first place.

 

His simple conception of the unpredictable end of the world, without apocalyptic adornment, is best remembered only by Matthew:

 

Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.  He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

 

-- Matthew 13:36ff.

 

Mark and Matthew tell us that Jesus believed this even to his fateful end:

 

"Ye shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven".

If Jesus could speak today he would be appalled at the words which have been put into his mouth by his followers

 

Words such as these:

And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

-- Matthew 26:27f.

And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

-- Mark 14:23f.

Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

-- Luke 22:20

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

-- John 6:53ff.

 

A Jewish Jesus would have thought such words as those to be an abomination. He preached instead a gospel of the fatherhood of God, of the imminent coming of God's kingdom with judgment, of radical renunciation of the world because it was about to be destroyed, of the necessity of mutual forgiveness of sins, of God's desire for mercy and not sacrifice, of the perpetuity of the law until heaven and earth pass away.

And here is the law on the subject, loud and clear:

 

But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

-- Genesis 9:4

It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood.

-- Leviticus 3:17

Moreover ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings. Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.

-- Leviticus 7:26f.

For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood. And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust. For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.

-- Leviticus 17:11ff. 

Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood: neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe times.

-- Leviticus 19:26

Only ye shall not eat the blood; ye shall pour it upon the earth as water. ... Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh. Thou shalt not eat it; thou shalt pour it upon the earth as water. Thou shalt not eat it; that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the LORD.

-- Deuteronomy 12:16, 23ff.

Only thou shalt not eat the blood thereof; thou shalt pour it upon the ground as water.

-- Deuteronomy 15:23.

 

It beggars belief that a Jewish Jesus believed anything contrariwise.

LOL, Russell Moore, faithful Southern Baptist and son of Southern Baptists, leaves SBC professionally and personally

Russell Moore, February 2020:

“I love the Southern Baptist Convention and am a faithful son of the Southern Baptist Convention."

Russell Moore, June 2021:

On Tuesday (June 1), a tweet by a Tennessee church not affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention welcomed Moore as its new minister in residence.

 

If I should die with thee, I will not deny thee in any wise. -- Mark 14:31

 

 

On the inevitability of income and wealth inequality

Experience teaches it, to be sure, and it's an old enough piece of common sense wisdom that it got enshrined by the Torah. Subsequently it was gifted to us by Christianity, in Pharisaical form, as crystallized by the tyranny of the Pauline consensus contaminating the gospels.

For the poor shall never cease out of the land . . ..

-- Deuteronomy 15:11a

For ye have the poor always with you . . ..

-- Matthew 26:11a 

For ye have the poor with you always . . ..

-- Mark 14:7a

For the poor always ye have with you . . ..

-- John 12:8a

For Paul, "poor" is what it has always been, an explicit category which is "other", and is not the essential element and mark of Christian self-definition, let alone Jewish:

only they would have us remember the poor, which very thing I was eager to do.

-- Galatians 2:10

Except Luke will have none of it.

He alone avoids the saying because it destroys the binary. Luke knows that voluntary poverty is the mark of true repentance qualifying one to be the disciple of Jesus, to be one of the few who will escape the imminently coming judgment. Luke's Jesus does not imagine a "church" which will feed and clothe the poor, let alone one which has enough substance to feed and clothe itself and "therewith be content". The choice is only binary, God or mammon.

Hence the unique Lukan witness, which takes the place occupied by "you have the poor always with you" in the other gospels:

So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple. 

-- Luke 14:33

Not very commonsensical, not very Jewish, either. Moses Maimonides did not approve. And Christians today avoid talking about it like . . . well . . . the plague.

Jesus' encounter with the Sadducees is pro-Pauline propaganda, not history

God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

-- Matthew 22:32

He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living.

-- Mark 12:27

For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.

-- Luke 20:38

The idea that Jesus got into a dust-up with the Sadducees over the intermediate state and resurrection and basically ended up taking the position of the Pharisees for himself is absurd. This is evidence of the later Pauline consensus contaminating the tradition, at the expense of the eschatology of the historical Jesus.

Talk of an intermediate state, for example, between death and final judgment where the dead go to be with the Lord interjects a fatal pause to the present time, which for Jesus is pregnant with eschatological expectation. That pause necessarily would have undercut the present sense of urgency which informed the call to repent and escape what is surely coming.

With an intermediate state awaiting at death instead of judgment imminently confronting, one rationalizes away the extraordinary current moment in favor of the continuation of human history as it has always continued.

 

The need to leave all and follow Jesus evaporates (Matthew 4; Mark 10; Luke 5; Luke 18), replaced by less consequential belief.

 

The establishment of a settled life and therefore a church is made possible, which accomodates itself to time instead of revolting against it.

 

A Gentile mission, specifically ruled out by Jesus (Matthew 10), becomes possible in Athens where "in him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28) has more currency than "the kingdom of God is at hand" in Jerusalem (Mark 1:15). The kingdom focused on Jerusalem recedes from view, as does the God who is coming there soon to judge this generation's guilt for the blood of all the prophets!

The problem for historians is that there was never a sound proponent of Jesus' eschatology who followed him who could match the thoroughgoing Pauline theology. And why should have such a person arisen if his followers "after the flesh" had truly understood Jesus as they must have? Their expectation also would have continued to be for an imminent end, even despite the death and resurrection of their master: "Wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6). There was no impetus to document anything for posterity, since posterity would never come to exist. This means that the gospels must be viewed with great suspicion everywhere, for they are the products of the subsequent, already compromised, period. They are not of the Urzeit. Only out of respect for Jesus do they preserve any of the conflicting evidence from his teaching.

Consider that if an intermediate state is put forward in the mouth of Jesus, all sense of urgency about the imminent coming judgment he predicted would necessarily melt away with authority. Belief in the restyled message of atonement could more easily become the message, relieving everyone of the onerous original obligations of discipleship. The obvious failure of the kingdom's coming meant Paul's rationalizations were ready made for the occasion, and came as a relief. In he stepped and supplied the solution to the ongoing disappointment caused by the delay of the parousia, and the death of the disciples' generation simply made all this a fait accompli.

Jesus did not view himself as Paul viewed him. "Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more" (2 Corinthians 5:16). Jesus viewed himself as the people viewed him, as a prophet. Thinking himself destined for death as so many of the prophets before him were, Jesus is unique because he thought of himself as the final prophet. Even as he's about to die he can say that history as we know it is about to end, too:

"[Y]e shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven."

-- Mark 14:62

"From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation."

-- Luke 11:51

This is where Muhammad got his idea to style himself as the final prophet, but armed with a sword, centuries later! More than most New Testament critics of modern times, Muhammad long before sensed the inadequacy of the gospels' handling of Jesus' eschatological message. And if Paul of Tarsus could receive direct revelations from God and refound a movement, so much more the better. So could he!

There is no dying and rising as a sacrifice for sins in Jesus' mind, only prophets perishing unjustly in Jerusalem. The rising is added under the influence of hysterical women, and an unstable Pharisee, Paul.

The fanatical Benjaminite had recourse to the resurrected Jesus to make sense of his own personal conversion experience, which was really a mental breakdown if one is to be perfectly frank about it. After all, after a surprising, brief period of activity as a Jesus advocate instead of as the well known and feared Jesus persecutor he had recently been, Paul disappears for a period of ten years, if the chronology and the account are to be believed. This is hardly the behavior of a settled individual convinced by his experiences one way or another, but of a still-troubled person. It was during this time that Paul must have developed his ideas of Jesus' sacrificial death and resurrection under the influence of the direct, supernatural visions and revelations he claimed were the sole basis of his gospel: "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ" (Galatians 1:12). What these really were is anyone's guess, but in his own time people already were calling him crazy. To be sure they are at the same time productive of ingenious solutions, as his letters testify. These solutions eventually supplied Paul with a ready escape from the offense of his own Jewish particularity, which he experienced as a Roman citizen in his Asian backwater, and at the same time validated the Pharisaic impulse, which he imbibed as a youth and to which he remained committed, to democratize Temple holiness by making proselytes and founding synagogues. His possession of the Roman franchise reinforced his ideas of human equality under God and their legitimacy.

The body of Jesus temporarily and hastily buried was missing on Easter morn because it was moved. The disciples to a man did not believe Jesus rose from the dead, only the women in their hysteria at discovering this did. (If one is looking for the incipient enthusiasm later displayed by early Christianity described in Acts, it is here). The gospels' portrayal of the general dim pall of ignorance of a predicted rising on the third day which hung over the movement despite all the supposed evidence to the contrary makes no sense if Jesus were in fact a resurrection preacher and intermediate state believer first and foremost. That "evidence" became part of the narrative ex post facto. The idea otherwise should not have been rejected so out of hand by his very own disciples as it was. The plainest explanation for their unbelief on the third day is that they had no prior knowledge of the idea of resurrection on the third day, and that because Jesus had never preached it.

Paul the Apostle is the true founder of Christianity. He co-opted the sectarian Jewish eschatological religion preached by Jesus. An enthusiast for Pharisaism to the end, Paul's personal ambition was to make Judaism safe as a universal religion, relegating present Jerusalem to the discarded past: "She is in slavery with her children" (Galatians 4:25). By turning Jesus into a Pharisee, he succeeded.

Nevertheless I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following; for it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!

-- Luke 13:33f.

Pretending no dull humanitarianism crept into the Christian gospel

Christianity and Humanity—from a Distance:

The humanitarian’s chief concern is with humanity in the abstract, the supposed plight of faraway peoples of whom the humanitarian likely has little or no direct knowledge. ... In a sense, the religion of humanity sees everything from a remote distance. How blessed are we that—at least according to the Christian gospel—God doesn’t regard us with the same aloof, theoretical concern.

For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.

-- Matthew 26:11

For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.

-- Mark 14:7

For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.

-- John 12:8

Jesus taught extreme avoidance of temptation because he was pessimistic about human nature and expected imminent judgment

The evidence is unequivocal.

Matthew 6:13  And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.

Matthew 26:41  Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

Mark 14:38  Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation. The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak.

Luke 11:4  And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.

Luke 22:40  And when he was at the place, he said unto them, Pray that ye enter not into temptation.

Luke 22:46  And said unto them, Why sleep ye? rise and pray, lest ye enter into temptation.

Matthew 5:29  If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.

Matthew 5:30  And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

Matthew 13:41  The Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers.

Matthew 18:6  But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

Matthew 18:8  And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life maimed or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire.

Matthew 18:9  And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire.

Mark 9:42  Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung round his neck and he were thrown into the sea.

Mark 9:43  And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire.

Mark 9:45  And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell.

Mark 9:47  And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell.

John 2:24f.  But Jesus did not trust himself to them, because he knew all men and needed no one to bear witness of man; for he himself knew what was in man.

Matthew 22:16  And they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, Teacher, we know that you are true, and teach the way of God truthfully, and care for no man; for you do not regard the position of men.

Mark 12:14  And they came and said to him, Teacher, we know that you are true, and care for no man; for you do not regard the position of men, but truly teach the way of God.

Matthew 7:11  If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

Luke 11:13  If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!

Matthew 3:7  Who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

Why did Jesus appear to go quietly to his death?

Jesus is reported to have said little at the trials which shortly preceded his execution.

This is often understood to mean that Jesus previously had resigned himself to the idea that it was God's will that he be crucified, but only after wrestling with God in prayer in the garden before his arrest, so that he did nothing to stand in the way of the inevitable once events had gotten underway in earnest. This "Stoical" demeanor later became an important part of early Christian preaching about Jesus' crucifixion, for example as reported in Acts, and became an important model for taking persecution with equanimity:

The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth. -- Acts 8:32

This fact of Jesus' silence at his trials is well known from the Synoptics:

And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? But Jesus held his peace. -- Matthew 26:62f.

And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? But he held his peace, and answered nothing. -- Mark 14:60f.

And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest. And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing. Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee? And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly. -- Matthew 27:11ff.

And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering said unto him, Thou sayest it. And the chief priests accused him of many things: but he answered nothing. And Pilate asked him again, saying, Answerest thou nothing? behold how many things they witness against thee. But Jesus yet answered nothing; so that Pilate marvelled. -- Mark 15:2ff.

And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a long season, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him. Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing.

 -- Luke 23:8f.

But you would be hard pressed to find this silence in the Fourth Gospel.

In John, by contrast, Jesus is not at all silent but has quite a lot to say at his trial, as a reading of John 18 amply testifies. And there is no evidence of any personal struggle in prayer, either, in the Garden of Gethsemane preceding his arrest, but rather a bold, self-assured confrontation with his betrayer. The only evidence of silence from the whole episode is more of Jesus pausing for effect than refusing or being unable to speak:

And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer. -- John 19:9

But that too passes as Jesus shortly does give reply.

In comparison to the Synoptics John's account is almost surreal, as if there is lurking there a Jesus who could actually be thinking he's not going to die and that God is still going to intervene at the very last second. In the end all the human drama is wrung out of John's wooden account in the service of a comprehensive theology about a descending and ascending incarnate Logos. 

But if it may be doubted that John is writing history, reasons remain to doubt the Stoical model susceptible from the Synoptic accounts as well.

For one thing, from the accounts of the struggle in prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane one cannot conclude there was any succor such that Jesus was now prepared to go quietly to his fate. The closest thing we get to that is in Luke 22:43, where we are told an angel appeared from heaven to strengthen Jesus. (Who was awake to see this?) But immediately after that Jesus is back on his knees praying again, in worse shape than before, sweating blood.

For another, Matthew 26 and Mark 14 omit the appearance of any angel, but the ongoing anxiety despite prayer is palpable in both accounts in that Jesus repeats his prayer three times asking that "this cup pass". While Luke has Jesus engaged in supplication only twice, all three include some form of the petition "not my will but thine be done", as if Jesus is still dwelling on what he wants to be the reality, but still is not.

Furthermore, the psychological terminology used in these accounts in the Garden is striking but is rarely allowed to paint a picture of the depressed state of mind into which Jesus is descending.

And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful (λυπεῖσθαι) and very heavy (ἀδημονεῖν). -- Matthew 26:37

The terms signify grief leading to tears, and a feeling of being lost and totally out of place (the KJV translation shown leaves quite a lot to be desired).

Mark says he was struck with terror, and felt lost:

And he taketh with him Peter and James and John, and began to be sore amazed (ἐκθαμβεῖσθαι), and to be very heavy (ἀδημονεῖν). -- Mark 14:33

As if those terms weren't enough, both Matthew and Mark pile up worse ones in the immediately following verses. Jesus is "beyond sorrowful", so sad he could die.

Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful (Περίλυπός), even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me. -- Matthew 26:38

And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful (Περίλυπός) unto death: tarry ye here, and watch. -- Mark 14:34

And Luke piles on that he was in utter agony, a terrible struggle with himself.

And being in an agony (ἐν ἀγωνίᾳ) he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground. -- Luke 22:44

What we have here is a man falling into a major depression, full of fears, feeling as if lost in unfamiliar country, isolated and alone, suddenly driven to repetitious behavior, perhaps seeing things, and speaking of dying.

It's a short step to catatonic stupor, in which you say nothing and become so rigid you just stand there and take it.