Thanks for the response. I now understand your first sentence. It was your use of the word Christianity that made me think you were referring to something later. I think the word was not coined by those you refer to here, and only came later.

Regarding the canon, even if the motive was sincerely an attempt to verify which texts were genuine, surely this would have been influenced by the prior beliefs of those choosing. If one believes in the basic core story, then one is likely to exclude anything which contradicts this, and consider authentic the texts which support it. If protestants choose then to believe that the authenticity comes from the texts without taking this into consideration, then we are going round in circles.

The historical events as related in the New Testament are indeed debatable and did not necessarily happen as presented. (There has indeed been much such debate by various scholars.) Seeing the story as to some extent (if not completely) mythical removes that problem – it certainly contains various mythological elements. We then merely have to interpret the myth. That is not to say, however, that there is no historically accurate material there.

I'll email you about your suggestion.