How One Question Changed Everything - A Detective’s Case File On the Origins of Christianity

When the Method Changed the Case

In November 2025, I applied a Key Assumptions Check to 20 years of research on Paul of Tarsus.

The method is designed to expose hidden assumptions in intelligence analysis.

It worked. But not the way I expected.

I spent years analyzing Paul of Tarsus as a potential false defector.

From an MA in History and Journalism to detective‑in‑training to detective, I applied counterintelligence methodology, defector‑assessment frameworks, deception‑detection tools, and Analysis of Competing Hypotheses to a 2,000‑year‑old case. The evidence fit. The patterns matched. The hypothesis held up under scrutiny.

We assembled an ACH team to test hypotheses against evidence. I compiled a list of things that needed explaining — both events that happened and things that didn’t happen. Dogs that barked and dogs that didn’t bark in the night.

After writing down everything I could think of, I went back to Structured Analytic Techniques for Intelligence Analysis by Heuer and Pherson — the book I’d used for ACH and deception‑detection methods.

Then, in November 2025, I went looking for assumptions.  

The method is called the Key Assumptions Check.

That step changed the entire framework.

On Method and Tone
I approach this investigation as a detective. For 20 years, I’ve worked cases and analyzed hundreds. That world is different from academia — different language, different purpose. In a case file, you document evidence, identify patterns, and present findings. You don’t hedge every statement with “it could be argued” or “further research may suggest.” Or: “Please invite me to a symposium so we can debate this endlessly.”

You state what the evidence shows. You explain your reasoning. You hand it to the prosecutor. If someone disagrees, they can present contrary evidence — but the standard is investigative rigor, not endless debate.
A case is closed. A research topic often remains an eternal research topic.

I’ve applied counterintelligence methodology to historical evidence and documented a pattern that requires explanation. This is my case file. I’m presenting findings.

If you’re expecting traditional academic hedging, that’s not what I do here.  

If you want to see what a 20‑year police detective finds when he treats the origins of Christianity as a cold case, keep reading.

The ACH Phase (Operation Messiah 1.0)
In 2001, I completed my MA thesis The Perfect Spy, supervised by historian Frank Ankersmit and theologian Jan Bremmer. It was published shortly afterward as Alias Paulus. I collaborated with Colonel Rose Mary Sheldon, a military‑intelligence historian at VMI, and published peer‑reviewed work in Small Wars & Insurgencies in 2005. In 2008, we published Operation Messiah together.

The thesis was straightforward: What if Paul of Tarsus (Saul) was a Roman intelligence asset?

I stepped away from the project for nearly two decades to work as a police detective. When I returned in 2025, following an invitation to appear on the History Valley podcast, I brought new tools: structured analytic techniques and defector‑assessment checklists developed by former CIA head of counterintelligence James Olson.

I treated Paul as a counterintelligence case — not a theological question.

We’re dealing with documents from a conflict environment. They describe a man executed as a threat to the state. A persecutor changing sides to join the executed man’s dissident movement — a movement using politically loaded terms like Messiah, meaning liberator king.

We’re dealing with military occupation, armed resistance, executions, unrest in multiple locations. Incomplete, unreliable sources written by a defector. People who distrusted him. People getting killed, like James, the brother of Jesus.

And this man keeps walking, getting into trouble wherever he goes — yet repeatedly protected by Roman military forces.

If that’s not an intelligence case, I don’t know what is.

The result? Paul’s profile matched classic false‑defector indicators:
·       Unverifiable origin story
·       Sudden defection with pre‑planned cover story
·       Rapid access and authority after “conversion”
·       Anomalous state protection
·       Missing documentation period
·       Messaging that neutralizes a security threat
·       And the biggest red flag, according to Olson: no handover of valuable intelligence to the side he supposedly defected to.

Operation Messiah 1.0 presented a coherent hypothesis: Paul as potential Roman agent responding to messianic unrest. You can see that presentation on the History Valley podcast and on my website.

But something was missing.

The Problem
The hypothesis was consistent with evidence — but hard to prove, easy to dismiss.

“Interesting but unfalsifiable.”  

An academic way of saying: I didn’t think of it, and I hope I didn’t miss something important. Let’s not go look.

It felt like the evidence was pointing somewhere I hadn’t yet looked.

The Pivot: Key Assumptions Check
Heuer and Pherson recommend a specific technique: the Key Assumptions Check (KAC). Before — or even after — running ACH, you don’t just question competing hypotheses. You question the assumptions all hypotheses share.

In counterintelligence, you map the assumptions that support the belief that a defector is genuine. If those assumptions fail, you must consider the possibility he’s a plant. A double agent. You dismiss him. Your priority is to protect the organization.

But the traditional interpretation assumed Paul was sincere — without testing, even though every defector in history must be tested.

I found hundreds of assumptions baked into the story. Not bad scholarship — just the reality of working with fragmented, ancient sources. But you have to be honest about it.

So I made a decision: a line‑by‑line analysis of Bart Ehrman’s 24‑lecture series on early Christianity.

Tedious work. Essential work. And entertaining — Ehrman is a great speaker, even if you disagree with some explanations.

I documented many assumptions in biblical scholarship. Most accepted without examination. Not Ehrman’s fault — he inherited them from the field.

But once you start looking for assumptions instead of arguments, you see them everywhere.

Six assumptions stood out as critical.

Assumption 1: Suetonius’s “Chrestus” ≠ Paul’s “Christos”
Suetonius (c. 120 CE) records that Claudius expelled Jews from Rome in 49 CE due to “disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus.”

Biblical scholarship treats “Chrestus” as an unknown agitator physically present in Rome. Paul’s “Christos,” by contrast, supposedly refers to Jesus Christ.

Two different figures. Two different movements.

But:
·       Christos is simply Greek for Messiah.
·       Chrestus is a common Latinized spelling, often interchangeable with Christos in inscriptions.
·       Jews in Rome spoke Greek.
·       The timeline: Chrestus riots (49 CE) → Paul writes about Christos (51 CE).

Why assume they’re unrelated?

It’s an assumption — not a fact.  

It is possible, even probable, that we’re looking at the same underlying messianic concept.

Assumption 2: The 17‑Year Gap in Paul’s Career
Traditional chronology (based on Acts) claims Paul converted around 33 CE, then wrote his first letter in 51 CE.
But:
·       Paul never describes his “conversion” in detail.
·       Acts contradicts Paul’s own timeline.
·       Acts is a late, low‑reliability source.
·       There is no independent evidence for a 17‑year gap.

What if there is no gap?  
What if Paul simply appears around 50 CE?  
What if Acts was written later to provide a credible backstory?
This is not radical — it’s standard source evaluation.

Assumption 3: Christianity Predates Paul
Traditional scholarship assumes Christianity existed before Paul.

But:
·       Paul’s letters (51–58 CE) are the earliest Christian documents.
·       No earlier Christian texts exist.
·       The Gospels and Acts were written later.

When we bracket later sources, the earliest documentary footprint of what becomes Christianity is Paul’s own activity.

The traditional model requires Christianity to have spread, formed communities, and left no trace until Paul appears.

The alternative: Paul’s letters are the beginning.

Assumption 4: Paul’s “Conversion” Was Genuine
Biblical scholarship assumes sincerity.

Counterintelligence never does.

Paul raises multiple red flags:
·       Unverifiable origin
·       Ready‑made defection narrative
·       Rapid authority
·       Roman protection
·       Low intelligence production
·       Resistance to vetting
·       Messaging that serves Roman interests

Run through Olson’s framework, Paul scores as a potential false defector.

Assumption 5: Paul’s Geographic Pattern Is Coincidental
Paul visits:
·       Corinth
·       Thessalonica
·       Philippi
·       Ephesus
·       Galatia
·       Rome

These cities:
·       Are major ports
·       Are directly connected to Ostia
·       Have established Jewish communities
·       Are exactly where expelled Jews would go after 49 CE

Traditional scholarship may call this coincidence.  
Intelligence analysis calls it pattern.

Assumption 6: Rome had “dealt with” the Jewish agitators simply by expelling them from the capital
This assumption is rarely stated outright, but it sits beneath the traditional narrative. How else can we explain the fact that scholarship has not asked the obvious question:

“How did the Romans monitor the agitators after expelling them from the capital?”

It is an unrealistic assumption.

Rome:

• had intelligence networks
• used informants
• monitored potential threats
• conducted counterinsurgency operations
• documented security concerns

Expelling thousands of agitated Jews and then ignoring them is not Roman protocol.

The question isn’t whether Rome could monitor displaced populations.  

It’s whether Rome would ignore a threat it had just exported.

They wouldn’t.

Once these six assumptions are questioned, the evidence arranges itself differently.
 
The Operational Sequence
 
Remove the six assumptions, and a different timeline emerges.

41–49 CE: Suppression Phase  
·       The Romans would not escalate from zero to expulsion.  
·       Unrest or disturbances must have been brewing for some time.  
·       Paul: “I persecuted the church violently.”  
·       Likely acting as an enforcer or agent within a broader suppression effort.

49 CE: Suppression Fails → Expulsion  
·       Claudius orders expulsion.  
·       Expelled Jews leave via Ostia.  
·       They travel along established maritime routes to major diaspora ports.
·       50–58 CE: Monitoring Phase  
·       Paul appears in those same cities.  
·       Immediately after the expulsion.  

With a transformed message:

Not political liberation
But spiritual salvation
Not resistance
But obedience to authorities

This aligns with Roman security interests and the needs of a displaced, potentially volatile population.

After 54 CE: Restrictions Lifted  
·       Jews return to Rome.  
·       Paul writes Romans — to a city he claims never to have visited.  
·       Then he goes there.

The mission completes where it began.  

 
The Question That Changed Everything

If:
·       “Chrestus” (49 CE) and “Christos” (51 CE) refer to the same concept
·       There is no evidence of Christianity before Paul
·       Paul appears immediately after the expulsion
·       His cities match displacement logic
·       His message serves Roman interests
·       His profile matches false‑defector indicators

Then:

What if it started in Rome?
What if the “Chrestus” disturbances came first?  
What if Paul’s “Christos” messaging was the response?  
What if Christianity began not as a religious movement spreading from Jerusalem, but as a Roman counterintelligence operation responding to messianic unrest in the capital?

That question led me to investigate something scholars have documented but never traced: the 49 CE expulsion itself.

Not just that it happened — but where the expelled Jews went.  
And who followed them.

We will explore the Maritime Routes from Ostia in another blog poat. And answer the question why the expelled Jews would have followed them.