Might be interesting to read his theory. Especially to see if it addresses these apparent paradoxes:
- If the Romans authored the Jesus myth to undermine Jewish influence, why did they implicate themselves in his crucifixion? Why not make it entirely a Jewish affair, where Jesus is stoned to death? Jesus himself prevented the stoning of a woman by Jews. Which itself conflicts with the account of his own trial before Pilate, when the Jews are alleged to have said they needed Pilate's authority to execute someone, lacking it themselves.
- It's conceivable that this proposed Roman tactic got out of hand, as the growing Christian movement was later perceived to be a threat to Rome itself. And that the infamous Christian mass persecutions were a consequence that occurred long after the rebellious Jews had been subdued, making the troublesome Christians expendable themselves, to serve evolving Roman political aims. The Roman invention of the Christians had succeeded in neutralizing Jewish influence, and now it was their turn to be thrown under the ox cart.
- Except, that doesn't explain the early martyrdoms of the original Apostles. If they were Roman agents, unwittingly or as collaborators, why kill them? St. Peter was crucified in Rome, by Roman authorities, several years before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
- The Jews were still fighting against Roman rule when St. Peter was executed. If Christians were a Roman weapon against the Jews, why kill their leader? Was it because the Roman plan was for the Christians to be confined to Jewish lands as fifth columnists, but Rome would suppress any that tried to spread their message to other parts of the Empire?