same set of facts, different conclusions...

The different narratives go something like this:

The Catholic perspective:  Once upon a time, there were Judeans and a Roman Empire.  During a census, a man and his pregnant wife went back to his hometown, where she gave birth to their kid, who wasn’t their kid, in the stable of a b and b.  The birth was attended by kings and shepherds and animals and angels.  And there was a star.  It was all according to the oracular books that were found at some earlier, unspecified time.

The kid grew up, said a lot of things (some of which were nice and made sense, some of which were rather confusing and had to be puzzled out—but that’s okay because he was really semi-Divine, so of course not everything he said would be comprehensible to his audience.  He also worked miracles.  The Romans didn’t really care about him.  The other Judeans hated him and wanted him killed.  The Romans crucified him.  He was buried, then rose again, then was received in heaven.  His followers went out and told everyone how amazing this was and the Catholic Church was born.  Ronans came to love it and it spread everywhere.

The Protestant perspective:  Once upon a time, there was a Roman empire that oppressed everyone around it.  At some point, we don’t really know when, a man returned to his hometown so his pregnant wife could have their kid and the birth was attended by Kings who had been led there by a star, or the kid was born amidst shepherds and animals.  We don’t really know which.  But it was one of the two, depending on which one your community received and which will empower you more.  Kid wasn’t semi-Divine, but was a whole lot like G-, who he called “his father.”  It was all in accordance with some oracular books that had been found at some earlier time.

            The kid grew up, said some really nice things, and some things that don’t necessarily make sense—but that’s okay because he was unique (as we all are).  He worked some miracles.  The Romans didn’t much care about him, but the Judeans hated him because he said he was better than they were.  He was crucified, died and was buried.  He rose again, was discovered by his followers, and went into heaven.  His followers went out and told everyone what happened.  The difference in the stories derives from the different “communities” that received the stories, and their different cultural norms and needs.   The different communities formed resistance groups to defend themselves and their radical beliefs against the oppressive Roman overlords, who were trying  to destroy them.  At some point, those Roman overlords adopted their version of these events, and formed the Catholic Church.  At a later point, a few valiant resisters stood up to the Catholic Church, pointed out how it was corrupt and oppressive, and wrested the true Church away, putting it back on its original path.

The Roman perspective:  Culture was formed by a combination of a plurality of divinities, including family gods, which gave a concrete focus for interaction with the unknown and the uncontrollable, and philosophy which provided a framework for communal conversation about the unknown and the uncontrollable.  The plurality of divinities meant that there was a level of tolerance for divergence of belief and opinion, as long as it didn’t get out of hand, and create conflict.  It was normal for peoples to adapt their native divinities with those they found in the Roman pantheon.  It was also the case that Romans would become infatuated with the glamor and mystery of a foreign god/philosophy and follow that.  The Judeans assisted Augustus in defeating Cleopatra, but could not be assumed into the Roman legions because their god could not be conflated into one of the Gods of the Roman legions.  To annex the Judean people and thus forestall the possibility of an uprising on their part against Rome, Augustus disarmed the Judean populace and installed a Governor of the province, while leaving their king in place (but taking his grandson hostage against the possibility of rebellion/resistance to the installation of a foreign governor in a territory and of a people who had not been conquered). 

A number of people in the Roman populace got hold of Greek translations of Judean books and decided they liked that new “philosophy.”  The Judean people objected to the imposition of an overlord because they had not been conquered, armed themselves and rebelled.  The Romans then conquered Judea (Jewish War, 66-70), destroying the Temple there.  The new “philosophy” that had attracted the interest of some Romans started attracting more followers.  The Judeans re-armed themselves and rebelled again (the Bar Cochba revolt, ca 125 CE).  The Romans re-conquered the people, expelling them from the territory. 

The philosophy that had its origins in Judean texts persisted.  Romans attempted to point out that similar Greco-Roman  types existed, and were, moreover, home-grown and not like the Judeans who couldn’t be trusted to stay unarmed even after they had been defeated.  The Romans who had become infatuated with the Judean “philosophy” became more determined not to allow themselves to be deprived of this philosophy that was new and daringly different (because its hero was one of those people who had found a way to provoke the Roman Empire not once but twice—which seemed to confirm its supernatural powers). 

The Judean perspective:  After a long and eventfilled history of rulers, kings, wars, conquests, expulsions, and returns, some idiot got the idea to translate Judean texts into Greek.  Then a bunch of Greco-Romans read the texts, decided they liked the “philosophy” and tried to join what they thought was a philosophical school, full membership in which required surgery.  They did not want to have the surgery.  Then another idiot, who had previously objected to outsiders being considered fully-functioning members of what they thought was a “philosophic school,” decided he had figured out how to instruct those Greco-Romans on how they could become accepted as fully-functioning members without having the necessary surgery.  They completely misunderstood him.  Judeans, having finally gotten tired of nearly a century of being treated as a conquered people despite never having been conquered, and having assisted Rome in defeating an enemy, found a way to re-arm themselves and rise up against Rome.  Rome conquered them.  The Temple was destroyed.  Since the Temple had been destroyed on a few other occasions, this was not completely the disaster Rome seemed to think it was.  Judeans found another way to re-arm themselves, and rose up again.  Rome conquered them again, and expelled them from the territory.

As a protective measure against outsiders acquiring information about how Judean society worked, its laws and its customs, Judean scholarship reorganized how it produced its texts, and made them such that the only way to acquire the necessary knowledge was by study with someone who had studied with someone, etc.  A community which had been a nation among nations became a society which was closed to all but those whose identities could be verified.