I would first ask you what you intend to say about the historical data we do have that in some ways support the Church's position and considers them less rhetorical.
The church is not considered when determining what happened in the past.
The pieces are factually rhetorical, as it the prose of the time the unknown authors were trained to write in following Aristotle's teachings.
Because of this prose, it does not mean it is fiction or mythology, it just means the authors built authority and methods of persuasion into their writings, regardless of content.
Would you argue it was contrived or the result of the culture at the time and the diaspora..the Hellenistic views of the time?
Yes, Judaism was becoming popular and spreading through the Diaspora and was increasing in popularity.
Who would you argue wrote these books?
Nothing to argue about, the authors are all for the most part unknown, less Paul's possible 7 epistles, and a few slight others. These were all a community effort despite who ever was named in the headers.
And if they are purely rhetorical, how do you see that changing the face of that faith?
You don't change faith. You just try and fill in pieces of the past that are unknown.
Faith rarely cares about credible evidence.
And if they were just tales passed from one to the next, why?
Its a dynamic period and you had a lot that happened all at once. Jesus martyrdom was the match that lit a wood pile that had been stacked for a while.
Hellenist Proselyte numbers were growing at VERY large rates, but many did not want to fully convert to cultural Judaism, but wanted to worship the one god, over the corrupt Emperor "son of god"
With the war these Proselytes wanted to separate themselves from Judaism, and not be identified as trouble making rebellious Jews.
Jesus was martyred in the temple in front of large crowds, this generated mythology that he was the true son of god, not the Emperor.
His selfless actions fighting corruption in the temple resonated in Hellenistic communities along with later mythology of a resurrection and added miracles.
Gentiles now had a choice they never had. Worship the popular son of god through a selfless man who gave of himself for the good of the people, knowing in context these people attributed positive conscious thought to god alone, so Jesus thoughts were considered so pure he was the real son of god doing the fathers work. OR the gentiles could worship the corrupt Emperor who was the first "son of god"
These Hellenistic Proselytes spread this good word of a kind selfless man through their communities and began to worship their god through jesus viewed as a sacrifice for the people.
You cannot let a good sacrifice get away from you
To subvert Jews, or to start an entire new faith, or just random moral tales, much like the Vedas?
Divorce Judaism as with the war, these people did not want to be identified with them.
Moral lessons yes, incorporated.
Random tales yes those to.
It wasn't about a new faith, it was dealing with the events that unfolded in their lives. They were never cultural Jews to begin with, and there had been generations of well studied Proselytes that knew Judaism forward and backwards like Paul that despite not being an oppressed Jew, considered themselves Jewish, yet at best were just Proselytes.
The difference between Jewish and Proselyte was based on which culture was using the term. Gentiles in Hellenistic circles who swore of pagan gods were considered Jewish. Where no real Jew would accept them as Jews.
Were talking about multiple cultures here, and Because Judaism was so wide and diverse, these followers of Jesus were still considered Jewish in some circles for a hundred years. They went under the radar and were unnoticed by the Romans.
But then why the man Jesus and why would he have had to die and be resurrected to make their point?
Resurrection is later mythology. So much so, Marks gospel barley made mention of it. It was not important at all in that theology.
His selfless sacrifice in front of half a million people made him famous, so much so, people far removed from his life tried to backfill his story with what ever information they could get their hands on at Passovers.
What was is about not dying that was so important?
Added later to building divinity greater then the Emperor they were competing with.
It was the crucifixion and death that was important, it was the suffering he did in the name of the common peasant.
Remember this was a terrible time of famine and disease, and the temple required lots of cash if you wanted to worship god in gods own house. The theology The Galileans started was that you didn't need the corrupt temple for the common man to reach god. Jesus made god accessible top the common peasant like it had never been done before. This made the Galilean theology popular, and Jesus was the front man with Johns death.
John was the teacher of Jesus, and unlike Jesus he was famous while alive. With Johns murder Jesus took the show to the road so there would be small crowds going under the radar, instead of drawing large crowds that would get you murdered.
Not dying meant the message would go on and on, instead of what happened to john whos message is literally lost to the ignorant not knowing Jesus carried his message on with ever lasting life.
