Key muddle: the Gospels show virtually no knowledge of the historical Jesus as he might actually have been known to the Jews around him  and instead constantly use the so-called Old Testament as source material for his life (reverse that, strip away all the "facts" connected to multifarious quotes from Jewish scripture intentionally included to prove old texts were later "fulfilled" in the life of Jesus, and what's really left as even possible historical evidence of the man?); moreover, the Gospels are an uncertain and inconsistent compiling of unreachable Greek (non-Aramaic, i.e., non-Palestinian-Jewish) earlier sources (not just to us, but to the earliest Christian communities as well, so much that nothing but "traditions" that, naturally, ratify Christian beliefs remain) in order to affirm to believers and to preach to non-believers a religion based on the Christ, believers and non-believers who were not Jews. What kind of microscopic needle in a planet-sized haystack would the historical Jesus be within all that? In other words, even if one sincerely is looking only for that particular Jew Jesus who lived in that specific place and time... good luck!

Modern scholarship -- since the 19th century -- considers that "doubt" a much later interpolation. Introducing an element of human doubt was key in the battle of the Church Fathers against docetists (those Christians who considered the humanity, and therefore the suffering of Jesus, an illusion).

Also, it was such a traditional trope for Jewish prophets to ask God not to force them into their mission that by the time the Gospels were mushed together, this was quite the cliche.

Finally, just like Jesus, David, fleeing from Absalom, went with his followers sadly to pray on the Mount of Olives:  2 Samuel 15:30 -- "And David went up by the ascent of mount Olivet, and wept as he went up, and had his head covered, and he went barefoot. All the people with him covered their heads too and were weeping as they went up."