What if Judas didn't do it?

[Belacqua]

Perhaps the difference is in the ordering: I would say that the events gives birth to the message, whereas Neo might say the message gives birth to the events.

Yes, this makes sense. 

It seems to me undeniable that, at least in the New Testament, the authors are basing their narratives on things that happened. Jesus was real, and he had some kind of impact on those around him. The extent to which they then mold the story to conform with traditional hero narratives, or invent details for the purpose of making a point, remains open to interpretation. 

So I suspect that both views are true in part -- events sometimes prompt the narrative, but messaging sometimes prompts fable-like tales. 

I'm reminded of how for hundreds of years philosophers would write dialogues and attribute them to Plato, because they were certain this was something he would have written if he'd had time. By modern standards this is forgery, but they felt that attaching Plato's name was appropriate and justified. Likewise I think that a story like that of the woman taken in adultery (which, if I remember right, is only in John) might have been an invention of the author because he felt it conveyed something true and important about Jesus's message. Or the events of Pentecost might have been "exaggerated for clarity" because some people felt strongly a change in spirit, and the author wanted a dramatic way of depicting that.

And I'm curious about your take on this. We agree it's not intended as disinterested journalism, but exactly what we should call it remains an interesting question.