"Rome's Invention of Pauline Christianity and Its Responsibility for the Great Fire of Rome in 64 C.E." in Revue des Études Juives 12/2005:
https://ur.booksc.me/book/65352906/45cf67
p.434:
It is this long-term repression of the Nazorean movement (together with its ideology) that would account, at least in part, for the lack of accurate references to this sect in ancient literature, including the New Testament. “[T]he limitation of anti-Roman polemic in what was to become New Testament documents to subtle cryptograms [i.e., derogatory code words for the Roman authorities] that only alert and informed readers will recognize testifies unambiguously to the awesome power of the Roman State... to exert that power over the lives of the early Christians.”56 This repression would also best explain Josephus’ total silence on the proper name of his Fourth Philosophy57 . This kind of censorship generally is what one would expect from an authoritarian political regime such as Rome during the course of a protracted guerrilla conflict against a strongly opposing ideology.
In turn, however, it is the existence of this drawn out guerrilla war that helps one identify the authors of the New Testament. For instance, almost no one would have deliberately chosen a guerrilla leader such as Jesus (see, for example, note 55 above) as a model for a Christian religion of love and peace — not, at any rate, without an ulterior motive. This is because the historical Jesus was not exactly the ideal model of love and tolerance. It is clear, therefore, that whoever founded Pauline Christianity most likely had an ulterior motive for selecting Jesus as an exemplification of this new religion’s values: It was almost certainly no accident that the founders of Christianity selected a guerrilla leader as their role model for pacifism. In light of everything, their reason most likely was that they were as much in- terested in twisting and depoliticizing Jesus’ anti-Roman message as they were in fostering love and cooperation. Furthermore, the New Testament is extremely sophisticated (e.g., see discussion below [and above at note 26] on Mark 5.1-20, which simultaneously draws on both Jewish traditions and Homer); and in the NT, Nazorean teachings are routinely and artfully twisted to Rome’s political advantage.
It is further obvious that Paul could not have both (1) participated in the wholesale liquidation of the Nazorean guerrillas58 and (2) later been ac- cepted by them as their “apostle to the Gentiles.” Since Paul probably did not, therefore, work for the Nazoreans, he most likely continued working for Rome (see note 58 above) even after his alleged conversion to Nazorean Judaism. In any event, having violently persecuted the Nazoreans, he al- most certainly would have needed Rome’s protection to travel around the Empire pretending to be one of them while at the same time twisting their message. Given Paul’s behavior in liquidating the Nazoreans, he most likely would never have lived long enough to complete his travels had he not received protection from the Roman army.
[...]These observations demonstrate that Paul, the putative founder of Christianity, was most likely a Roman agent.
In turn, however, it is the existence of this drawn out guerrilla war that helps one identify the authors of the New Testament. For instance, almost no one would have deliberately chosen a guerrilla leader such as Jesus (see, for example, note 55 above) as a model for a Christian religion of love and peace — not, at any rate, without an ulterior motive. This is because the historical Jesus was not exactly the ideal model of love and tolerance. It is clear, therefore, that whoever founded Pauline Christianity most likely had an ulterior motive for selecting Jesus as an exemplification of this new religion’s values: It was almost certainly no accident that the founders of Christianity selected a guerrilla leader as their role model for pacifism. In light of everything, their reason most likely was that they were as much in- terested in twisting and depoliticizing Jesus’ anti-Roman message as they were in fostering love and cooperation. Furthermore, the New Testament is extremely sophisticated (e.g., see discussion below [and above at note 26] on Mark 5.1-20, which simultaneously draws on both Jewish traditions and Homer); and in the NT, Nazorean teachings are routinely and artfully twisted to Rome’s political advantage.
It is further obvious that Paul could not have both (1) participated in the wholesale liquidation of the Nazorean guerrillas58 and (2) later been ac- cepted by them as their “apostle to the Gentiles.” Since Paul probably did not, therefore, work for the Nazoreans, he most likely continued working for Rome (see note 58 above) even after his alleged conversion to Nazorean Judaism. In any event, having violently persecuted the Nazoreans, he al- most certainly would have needed Rome’s protection to travel around the Empire pretending to be one of them while at the same time twisting their message. Given Paul’s behavior in liquidating the Nazoreans, he most likely would never have lived long enough to complete his travels had he not received protection from the Roman army.
[...]These observations demonstrate that Paul, the putative founder of Christianity, was most likely a Roman agent.