Does the subtitle "A New England FOLK TALE" offer a third interpretation of the film?

There are basically three interpretations of this film: 1) the witches are real and this film is meant to be taken as literal; 2) the entire story was somehow a delusion on the part of all characters caused by paranoia or claustrophobia or ergo poisoning or all of the above; or, 3) this is a story told after the fact by the community from which the family was exiled - with a view towards discouraging the questioning of religious doctrinal authority and defections, both of which would jeopardize the collective endeavors and harmony of that community.

Obviously option one (it's all real after all), is the easiest to sell. However, if this story is in fact a FOLK TALE, wouldn't that imply that this story is being told and retold later by outside parties (presumably from the community they left)?. Folk tales only exist if someone is telling them, so if this story is a folk tale then some third party outside of the family must be telling it, true? Thus, of course the story is shown as being literal. Showing the family succumbing to evil actually works in the favor of the community, because it discourages rebellions that harm the success of the plantation, while at the same time warning of the dangers of pride, sensuality, etc. It would be permissible to show the Devil as winning in this case because the family brought the problems on themselves with the pride of thinking they could do it alone without their help

Of course, the problem with option three is that, aside from the subtitle itself, the film does not show a prologue or epilogue (or anything) indicating that outsiders discovered the farm and the remains of three dead bodies (mother, father, eldest son), plus four missing (eldest daughter, the younger son and daughter, plus the infant), nor are we given any hint within the film itself that this story was created to explain these mysterious events. This could have been shown, for instance, with an inquest into the events, or they could have shown a hand closing a book of New England Folk Tales or an historical document, or some such device.

Still, I don't know if that was the intent of the director or not, but I personally would find that more interesting than being a pro- or anti-religious film, or an "is it all in their heads?" movie. Yet, if that was the intent, perhaps the director erred in favor of "too much ambiguity/subtlety", which, ironically, made the film less ambiguous and subtle as a result.