I'm not sure I understand what you mean? A conspiracy then or now?
People have been writing scripture and gospels in all cultures and religions. Right before Rome switched to Christianity there were libraries of scripture of their earlier state religions, Mars and his son Romulus. Jupiter was a really big god, the highest god like Allah.
So of course we know now that those scriptures were just made up. Same with Greek gods. But both cultures had very prolific writers who wrote lots of gospel. Most was destroyed in later centuries by the Roman Catholic church. The Greek library was burned by Rome.
Early Christian gospels which was 50% Gnostic and always had a very different Jesus. The Adoptionist portrayed Jesus as a man. The 1st gospel ever, the Marconite gospel was different also.
So even modern Christians assume early Gnostic writers were just making stuff up.
The Lost Gospels by Elaine Pagels shows why the 4 canoical gospels were chosen by Bishops who wanted a power structure of only people in the supposed bloodline, church leaders who were the only people allowed to teach and interpret the gospels, no women in power, selective membership etc...
The Gnostics were more like hippies, anyone could teach. Bishop Ignatious I think, was fighting for power to control church members.
The Nag Hammandi teaches about early Gnostics. Was still all made up stuff. Religious gospel isn't about what's true. In OT times people didn't even write history like we think of it.
William Dever, Professor Emeritus at the University of Arizona
Archeology of the Hebrew Bible — NOVA | PBS
Yet many people want to know whether the events of the Bible are real, historic events.
We want to make the Bible history. Many people think it has to be history or nothing. But there is no word for history in the Hebrew Bible. In other words, what did the biblical writers think they were doing? Writing objective history? No. That's a modern discipline. They were telling stories. They wanted you to know what these purported events mean.
The Bible is didactic literature; it wants to teach, not just to describe. We try to make the Bible something it is not, and that's doing an injustice to the biblical writers. They were good historians, and they could tell it the way it was when they wanted to, but their objective was always something far beyond that.
he Bible chronology puts Moses much later in time, around 1450 B.C.E. Is there archeological evidence for Moses and the mass exodus of hundreds of thousands of Israelites described in the Bible?
We have no direct archeological evidence. "Moses" is an Egyptian name. Some of the other names in the narratives are Egyptian, and there are genuine Egyptian elements. But no one has found a text or an artifact in Egypt itself or even in the Sinai that has any direct connection. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. But I think it does mean what happened was rather more modest. And the biblical writers have enlarged the story.
Since this interview Thomas Thompson's book on Moses and similar has been accepted as accurately describing why it's myth.