I read the Jesus wars, and IIR some of the votes were "purchased". If the manuscripts are still around from the first 100 to 200 years, it would be hard to re-invent any conspiracies unless new evidence came to light. Spinning things that don't exist can still happen. I am no theologian by any stretch of the definition, but it is an interest of mine. Perhaps it is making things too simple to compare the division between James and Paul as being similar to the US's current political structure. Both sides want the "best" for the populace but their attempts are at odds with each other. It would seem to me that Paul had the education and political status advantage over James, but I am missing the point how their portrayal of the Gospel is at odds with each other in light of their backgrounds. Could it not be said that the Roman version of how history unfolded was a conspiracy theory to portray Peter as the founder? According to some Jesus appointed James as the first leader. Some would say Peter was the first leader. And then others would say Paul was the leader. Could it not be said that each followed their heart and thoughts and did what they could. That they were leaders or influential was only a by product, not who they set out to be.