2. Both Matthew and Luke shape their respective images of Jesus to distance him from the allegation that he was, in fact, a rebel, and also seek to clarify the relationship between Jesus and John. By the time Luke-Acts is written, there is a "standard" portrayal of Jesus as an exclusively spiritual Messiah who was misunderstood by -- everyone. But there remains this persistent tradition visible within the gospels in which both men are followed by militants, both men die accused of or associated with rebellion, and both men remain more or less enigmatic figures for at least several centuries.

Please understand: I am not prepared to argue that Jesus was, in fact, a Zealot or something of the kind. The Synoptic evangelists (especially Matthew) would have had a vested interest in portraying Jesus as having fulfilled the requirements for a Messiah, and would have had to walk a fine line between myth and reality.

I apologize. Civil Comments imposes artificial constraints on my thoughts.