My response to this is that those making this proposal have no evidence to present.  This is simply speculation.  People can make all the speculations they like, but unless they have evidence, such claims should be labeled as what they are—sheer speculation.   I can no more prove that this did NOT happen than they can prove that it DID happen.  How can I rebut an argument which is not supported by evidence.  Do these folks want to propose that they also “shaped” the details of a Roman execution to include piercing of hands and feet to match the details of Psalm 22?

The speculative assumption being offered here is that the authors, basically, lied.  They made up stories so that they could create a false narrative about Jesus.  It seems to me that the only way this could be true would be if those writing these accounts did not actually believe in Jesus.  They believed that in order to support the belief that Jesus is Messiah—the Savior of the world—they would need to create false evidence, which implies that they did not believe their own evidence.  In essence this would mean that they did not believe Jesus was the Messiah.  Personally, I reject this conclusion for the simple reason that it is clear from history that the main followers of Jesus, which would include the apostles and the authors of the New Testament, such as Luke, did in fact believe in the resurrection of Jesus.  They did in fact believe that Jesus was the Messiah—the Son of God.  All were willing to put their life on the line for this belief.  That being so, they would not take part in a sort of conspiracy theory that these critics are proposing.  When accusing someone of deceit, the presumption of innocence ought to be applied, unless there is some external evidence of the bad character of those involved.  Such evidence is lacking.

So, I cannot “disprove” this speculation, but I believe it is a speculation which opposes some basic common sense regarding what we know about the early leaders of the Christian church.

One qualification.  Let me start by saying I believe the reason that Luke, John and others mentioned the donkey colt, the gambling over clothing and the wine vinegar is that these things actually happened.  Is it possible, given that these prophecies were in fact fulfilled, that the writers shaped the accurate facts to look similar to the Hebrew wording–so that believers might not the parallels more easily?  Yes.  That would be very likely.  But that is not the implication of the accuser here, who claim that facts were altered or created to produce the false impression that these prophecies were indeed fulfilled in Christ.

John Oakes