"Operation Messiah" (link to journal) examines the idea that Saul of Tarsus/Apostle Paul was "an agent-provocateur working for the Roman administration in Palestine and various other parts of the Empire".
However, the article seems to mostly explore the vein of plausibility, mainly making the case that Saul could have been an agent and not focusing on determining if he actually was.
That being said: is there any historical support for either question? To what extent is this theory plausible, and is there any actual support for this theory outside of the realm of plausibility?
I will conclude by arguing that Paul's claim that Jesus, this candidate-king of the Jews, was the Messiah and had been crucified as the will of God (the prime assumption upon which Christianity is based) should be read as a sadistic mockery of Jewish faith, meant to divide a Jewish resistance organisation.
Don't have access to the article, but I'm not sure how mocking the Jewish faith would divide a Jewish resistance organization. Claiming that a crucified criminal was the Messiah would probably anger many Jews, but I don't see how you could expect that mocking their faith would divide them in a useful way for the Romans.